Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

VALERIE MARY HILL AND ALAN MONK (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed.

BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

EXETER-LAUNCESTON-BODMIN TRUNK ROAD (OKEHAMPTON BYPASS)

Ordered,
That the Committee appointed to join with the Lords as the Joint Committee to consider the Petition of General Objection against the Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin Trunk Road (Okehampton Bypass) Compulsory Purchase Orders (Nos. CSW1 and CSW2) 1984 have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed bypass, and any sites which have been proposed as alternatives, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by their Counsel or Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Nuclear Warheads (Transportation)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the precautions taken to ensure the safety of nuclear warheads when they are in transit.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): Before answering the question, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence regrets that he is unable to be present today because of his attendance at the meeting of the nuclear planning group.
The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is yes, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the nuclear planning group the higher standards of safety required in the transport of nuclear weapons in the United States than in this country? Is that higher standard the reason why the details of the American safety precautions are lodged with the Library of Congress, while our own Government are unwilling to reveal any details to the House?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we have extensive safety precautions that have

satisfied the present and all previous Governments. In considering the standards set, we can take some satisfaction in the fact that we have managed to transport United Kingdom nuclear weapons in this country in conditions of safety over a very long period. Nevertheless, we are not complacent, and that is why we keep the safety procedures under review.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the warheads themselves are safe, considerable danger is posed by those who seek to disrupt the convoys? Could anything be done to persuade those people to desist?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is not responsible to seek to disrupt the movement of nuclear weapons.

Sir John Farr: While the warheads are disarmed and are therefore entirely safe to travel by road, rail and air, are not those who seek to suggest otherwise doing serious damage to public safety?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The safety record, which has endured over a long period, certainly vindicates his point.

Mr. Meadowcroft: What are the implications for the transit of nuclear warheads to and from Greenham Common of any delay in the construction of the Newbury bypass?

Mr. Stanley: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to training exercises. As we have made clear, live warheads are not carried during cruise missile training runs.

Mr. Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Psychological Society has today confirmed the safety of the methods to which he has referred, and that the people of Leicester are much more reassured by what my right hon. Friend has said today than they are by the antics of the city council in putting up "nuclear-free" signs?

Mr. Stanley: I am not intimately familiar with the activities of the British Psychological Society, but I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments and for praying that society in aid.

Mr. Denzil Davies: We quite understand why the Secretary of State is not here. We understand that there is a very important meeting in Brussels and we do not object to the right hon. Gentleman's absence. However, will the Minister of State assure us that when the right hon. Gentleman returns he will make a statement to the House about what happened at that meeting? The House is often given no information about such matters despite the fact that hon. Members on both sides wish to debate the issues.

Mr. Stanley: Those matters relate to a later question, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is normal practice to issue a communiqué. I am sure that one will be issued on this occasion.

Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have tried to look into these matters are satisfied that safety precautions are adequate? Will he consider issuing something like a child's guide for those of us who find some of the technical matters involved difficult, so that we may convince even Opposition Members that the safety precautions are adequate?

Mr. Stanley: The simplest guide that I can give my hon. and learned Friend is that we have made it clear that the most rigorous precautions are taken, as a result of which we have an accident-free record that has lasted for a long time.

RAF Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): Industry completed the feasibility study into the viability of a collaborative European fighter aircraft programme last month. The reports of the study are now being evaluated nationally and internationally. EFA Defence Ministers will review those reports and consider the way ahead at a meeting in Rome, probably in mid-May.

Mr. Thorne: Will my hon. Friend go a little further and give some definite information that I can pass to the 16,000 aerospace workers in Greater Preston, who are worried about the future of their jobs? Should they be looking elsewhere already, or shall we get a positive decision on the EFA?

Mr. Butler: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a great deal more information now. I see no reason why he should start scaring his constituents and others who work at the factories concerned. The project is progressing as we would have expected. It is extremely complicated and I just hope that when we meet in Rome it will be possible to agree on the next steps forward.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that international collaboration, which we are always seeking, could be between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain? If France does not want to participate on the terms that those four countries are setting, it will have to think again, as we must have an urgent decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Butler: It is correct that, as part of the studies into the successor aircraft for the Phantom and Jaguar, we are examining several options, which includes a national one. My hon. Friend has mentioned one route which could be taken. The Government's present objective is to make the project work on a five-nation basis if we can.

Mr. Beggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the future policy of the Ministry will be to encourage real competition and enterprise in the United Kingdom aircraft industry? Will he confirm that the £60 million saved for the taxpayer and the Ministry of Defence by the successful competitive tender of Short Brothers for the Royal Air Force basic trainer shows clearly that there should never again be a monopoly of supply to the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Butler: I agree that we have just had a successful competition for the RAF trainer. When talking about aircraft as complicated, expensive and advanced as the European fighter aircraft, however, the competition is much less easy to achieve.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the objective of translating the five-nation operational requirement into an operational aeroplane is wholly laudable, it is necessary to keep

productive facilities in Britain fully employed? In that regard, if the decision is delayed further, will he consider at the very least ordering a further batch of Tornado aircraft?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend always speaks wisely on these matters. We have considerable and close regard to the workload at the relevant British Aerospace factories. I believe that delay beyond a certain point would not be acceptable.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be regrettable if delays continued and we ended up in 1995 with an American fighter aircraft bought off the shelf?

Mr. Butler: I hope that that would not be possible, but one has to be completely realistic. It might occasionally be better to buy abroad, but the Government's record on placing business at home is extremely good.

Mr. Favell: Do the options to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier include the possibility of the development of the P120?

Mr. Butler: The P120 aircraft is being considered under the national option.

Mr. Donald Stewart: When the Secretary of State referred to the Short's contract he said that it had been awarded on the basis of the lowest tender. May we take it that that will be the criterion for the award of future defence contracts?

Mr. Butler: It is likely that in all or most cases the two prime criteria of operational performance and cost will be at the forefront of our minds when we reach these decisions. However, we made it clear in that particular competition that the issue of jobs and other matters must also be considered.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when he orders the new Royal Air Force fighter that sometimes it is unwise to change the engine and engine mountings of an aeroplane, because it can have disastrous flying results, as every pilot knows.

Mr. Butler: All parties to the present EFA agreement agree that a new engine will need to be developed for the aircraft.

Mr. Concannon: Is not the successful tender of Shorts for the RAF trainer aircraft just a good example of why it was Ulsterised or nationalised at one time?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the two points hang together.

Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, if only to reassure my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), that he and his fellow Ministers will not allow the French to pursue their standard tactics of delaying a decision until their own product is available?

Mr. Butler: A lot of reference has been made to delay. I do not find that delay exists at the moment. I have made it clear that if there are signs of continuing delay and it is clear that there would be disadvantages from that, we would have to take action in other directions.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that we would regard the national option as the least desirable, that there


is a great deal more to be said for long production runs with international collaboration and that, if necessary, and perhaps even preferably, we should work with our Tornado partners, with whom we have had a great deal of experience in these matters?

Mr. Butler: Leaving aside the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am delighted to find that he agrees with both me and the Government on this occasion. It is an unusual occurrence.

European Anti-ballistic Missile System

Mr. Sedgemore: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals for a European anti-ballistic missile system.

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals for a European anti-ballistic missile system.

Mr. Butler: No such proposals have been made or received by the British Government.

Mr. Sedgemore: If it is true that Britain and Germany have been saved during the past 40 years by the concept of mutually-assured destruction, why is there a need for Europe to back research into costly and speculative star wars mania?

Mr. Butler: The main objective of the strategic defence initiative is to enhance deterrence. Deterrence has kept the peace in Europe for the past 40 years.

Ms. Short: Will the Minister confirm that the United States of America is attempting to persuade Europe to participate in star wars, that in Germany in particular they regard the American proposal for star wars as wholly undermining the strategy of mutually-assured destruction, and that the proposal is destabilising and likely to escalate the arms race?

Mr. Butler: I read reports of what Chancellor Kohl said last week and I do not think that the hon. Lady understands the German position. Participation in research is the only activity which is contemplated. We have made it clear that we wish to participate in that research. The details of that have yet to be worked out.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister agree that any successful development of anti-ballistic missile defences in Europe would not be proof against cruise-type missiles or nuclear weapons delivered by shorter range and battlefield systems? In those circumstances, would not the development of star wars technology leave Europe more, rather than less, vulnerable to nuclear attack?

Mr. Butler: If the interpretation of ballistic missiles is missiles which leave the atmosphere, the hon. Gentleman is right. But, of course, if we can produce a completely effective defence system against such missiles, we shall reduce the risk to Western countries.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister should try to answer the excellent questions put by my hon. Friends. President Reagan's speech has turned the entire Western nuclear strategy on its head, and the Government realise that very well. Does the Minister accept that the Opposition approve of much of the Foreign Secretary's speech a few weeks ago, and that we deplore the expatriate neurosis shown by Richard Perle when he came to London to address some

loony Right meeting? Will the Minister say clearly that he deplores the Perle speech and the American initiative in these matters?

Mr. Butler: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said. All of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech rested on the now, I hope, well known four points of Camp David. I noticed a moment ago that the right hon. Gentleman disagreed when I said that the strategic defence initiative had as its main objective the enhancement of deterrence. I am happy to repeat the third point agreed at Camp David, which was that the overall aim is to enhance, not to undercut, deterrence.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the SDI intended, if it proves successful, to provide a global defence against ballistic missile attack? Is it not true that a space-based, orbital defence system would be able to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost, and in the ballistic and trajectory phase, and that that would enhance deterrence by reducing the risk of pre-emptive attack, including attack against Europe, especially by strategic systems and by intermediate range ballistic missiles?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend's interpretation of the concept of the SDI is right. We all recognise that these are still early days, and that research must be carried out. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was investigating the various strategic implications of the new proposal.

Trident Missile

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made an estimate of the effect on employment in the United Kingdom that will result from the introduction of the Trident missile system.

Mr. Butler: The British Trident programme is expected to create an extra 17,000 direct jobs and 13,000 indirect ones during the peak years of the project, with a total of 170,000 man years of direct employment in the United Kingdom and 130,000 indirect man years over the programme as a whole.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that in the five peak years of Trident expenditure commencing in 1988, £1 in £4 of the major procurement defence budget will go to Trident in America, and that that will prejudice essential expenditure in our conventional defence industry? If he is not prepared to cancel Trident on defence grounds, will he consider cancelling it on the ground of the impact that it will have on jobs in Britain?

Mr. Butler: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would at least have welcomed the good news about job creation. I have no idea where he gets his figures from. The proportion of the equipment budget that will be taken at peak is estimated at 11 per cent. Therefore, in no way can £1 in £4 go to America.

Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only decision that we must take on Trident is whether Europe needs an independent nuclear deterrent, since there can be no ultimate guarantee that a future American Administraton would come to the defence of Europe? Will he confirm that the Trident system is cheaper in real terms than Polaris?

Mr. Butler: The main reason for having Trident is to make our contribution to the policy of deterrence which has been so effective during the 40 years since the second world war. In the remote, hypothetical event of Western Europe being isolated, clearly Trident and the French nuclear deterrent would have a special part to play.

Mr. James Lamond: If going ahead with the Trident missile would destroy jobs rather than creating them, would the Minister still go ahead with the programme?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will have to find another opportunity to explain what is behind his question. I have given a clear answer as to the number of jobs that the programme will create.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that of the jobs that will be created in Scotland many of them will be at Coulport, the base where Trident submarines will be, even though that has been declared a nuclear-free zone?

Mr. Butler: Yes, and I hope that the declaration by the local authority will be ignored.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister take into account the reports in last night's "News at Ten" of allegations that are emerging from America concerning the gross profiteering of General Dynamics in respect of the Trident programme in the United States? Will the Minister take the necessary steps to assure the House that the cost of the gross inflation tactic being used will not be borne by the British taxpayer in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Butler: The largest part of the expenditure on the submarine element of the Trident programme will fall in this country.

RAF Molesworth

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution to the cost of security at RAF Molesworth has been made so far by the United States Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): None. The costs of the current development works and security operation at RAF Molesworth are being borne by the United Kingdom as part of its host nation responsibilities to NATO.

Mr. Alton: Cannot the Minister tell the House what will be the total cost of security at Molesworth to the British taxpayers and ratepayers? Will he anticipate what will be the cost of maintaining security during the Easter vigil next week? Does he not believe that the American Government, as it is their base and their weapon, should make some contribution towards security costs?

Mr. Lee: No figures are available, but, in terms of the apportionment of future costs, infrastructure costs will be shared as between NATO and the United States national programme and the United Kingdom will be responsible for the cost of road access into the site and utilities. As to costs that we might incur in protecting the base because of possible Easter demonstrations, we are determined to defend the integrity of the base.

Sir Anthony Grant: Whoever contributes to the cost of security at Molesworth, is my hon. Friend aware that

it is essential to safeguard the amenities of the citizens and residents in the area? Is he aware that they are also entitled to their own rights, and that they wonder how Monseigneur Bruce Kent would like it if they disrupted, and kicked up hell during, his church services?

Mr. Lee: I endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. Many hon. Members are concerned that the Easter marches will not be disturbed. We are concerned that the rights of local residents during Easter are maintained and that the Ministry of Defence police are not disturbed and have a happy and pleasant Easter.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on construction work being carried out under the auspices of his Departmnt in the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Stanley: There are two major related projects in the course of construction, the first is the building of a new international airport and associated facilities at Mount Pleasant, together with a road linking it to Port Stanley, and the second is additional facilities for the garrison adjacent to the new airport. Construction is on schedule for the runway to be available for limited use as from May of this year and for the airport to be fully operational early in 1986. Work started on the additional facilities for the garrison in December 1984; progress to date has been good, and completion is expected in early 1987.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful for that answer. The Select Committee described civilian use of the airport as a matter of urgency, and the Shackleton report said that it was a priority, so why have no proposals been put forward for such use of the airport? The Government have refused any subsidy for civilian use of the airport. Who does the Minister expect to operate from Mount Pleasant airport, and when does he expect the civilian flights to start operating?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are trying to achieve the earliest possible initial operating capability so that, in particular, we can rotate our forces, using wide-bodied aircraft rather than the Hercules air bridge. There are good cost advantages in doing so. The requirement is to ensure that during the period of the initial operating capability there is the most limited possible utilisation of the airfields so that the works can be completed. Once they are finished, it is our intention to make the fullest possible civilian use of the airfield facilities.

Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the appointment of the first Royal Air Force officer as commander of the Falkland Islands garrison to comment on the remarkable inter-service co-operation that has been achieved on the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. I confirm that it is a first-class example of the tri-service co-operation which was evident during the period of conflict and which has continued very much in peace time.

Crown Proceedings Act

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking about section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act.

Mr. Stanley: The review of section 10 is continuing, but I am as yet unable to say when it will be completed.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that his answer is word for word almost the answer that he gave to me a year ago, and that his answer then referred to an answer that he gave the previous year? Is he further aware that section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act places a veto on any legal action for negligence by any service man who happens to be severely disabled, or by his relatives if he is killed, and that it is wrong that the Act should prevent service men or their relatives from taking such action? The matter is so simple that it requires consideration, not for two years, but for just one hour.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a simple matter, but the fact is that section 10 has been found to be satisfactory by successive Governments ever since the Government of Mr. Attlee put it on the statute book. Therefore, there must be very good reasons why this piece of legislation is thought to be in the interests of service men as a whole. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that the review has taken some time does not reflect any lack of interest in the matter on the part of the Government, but reflects the real complexity of the issues that we are considering.

Mr. Adley: Nevertheless, is the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) not right to use Parliament as the place to try to bring these matters to a satisfactory conclusion from his point of view? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to express his surprise, if he was aware of this, that while the right hon. Gentleman rightly tries to change the law in Britain, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is a member of the shadow Cabinet and the official Opposition spokesman on defence, has apparently seen fit to sign an early-day motion which clearly calls for the breaking of the law? Is that not shocking?

Mr. Stanley: I note what my hon. Friend says, but, happily, I do not believe that there is any question of negligence or damages under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act.

Government Purchasing

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures will be taken by his Department following the conclusions of the recently-published report by the Management and Personnel Office on Government purchasing.

Mr. Lee: Action documents have been prepared and will be submitted to Ministers shortly. It is still too early to say what changes may be made in the organisation or management of our procurement branches as a result of this process.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to simplify Government purchasing procedures, and so encourage small firms to play their part in achieving savings?

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We are doing everything possible in this

regard. Our competition policies allow greater opportunities than ever before for small firms, and 40,000 copies of the booklet "Selling to the Ministry of Defence" have been distributed. We are relaxing our specifications wherever appropriate.

Mr. Gordon Brown: In avoiding conflicts of interest in Government purchasing, what role will the new Chief of Defence Procurement play in vetting and awarding contracts to his friends in the Defence Manufacturers Association, in which he was until recently a senior office bearer? Why was it that while still an arms salesman the new Chief of Defence Procurement spent a large part of last year hawking the possible Government franchise for the royal dockyards around his friends in the Defence Manufacturers Association?

Mr. Lee: Having been chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association, Mr. Levene is extremely well qualified for the job of Chief of Defence Procurement and he has an outstanding record in the private sector. I emphasise that he has severed all connections with his former companies and has divested himself of all shareholdings. Arrangements have been made within the Department to ensure that Mr. Levene will have no access to the Department's business with his former companies.
There is a precedent for this appointment. The Labour Administration in 1969 appointed Mr. Leslie Norfolk, a former director of the heavy organic chemicals division of ICI, as chief executive of the royal dockyards at a salary of £11,000 a year. That salary was considerably higher than the then going rate for a permanent secretary at £8,600 a year. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was then the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and he took a close and supportive interest in that appointment.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that often the best gamekeepers are ex-poachers? Is it not, therefore, interesting that the Opposition have never said that Mr. Levene will not make a good Chief of Defence Procurement?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. The shooting metaphor is well known and apposite in this case. We spend about £1 million an hour on defence procurement. Only a small improvement in our purchasing through Mr. Levene's involvement is needed to more than recoup his salary.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In relation to Government purchasing, are not the Government concerned about the activities of Messrs Aish and Co. of Poole and Messrs Dowty Rotol and Co. of Cheltenham, because both those companies fired employees who refused to keep quiet about cheating by the MOD over defence contracts? Does the Minister intend to intervene and personally secure the position of those two employees who were serving the national interest?

Mr. Lee: I have looked into both those cases personally. I visited Dowty about a week ago and raised the matter. Negotiations with both companies are proceeding. In the latter case, the Ministry of Defence police are examining papers.

Mr. Latham: Will it be this report on Government purchasing, or a separate one, which will identify responsibility for the disastrous position over the Nimrod aircraft and sort everything out as quickly as possible?

Mr. Lee: I have already acknowledged in the House that the question of the Nimrod AEW is not a matter about which our Department or Defence Ministry contractors should be particularly proud.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his attempts to try to justify the Levene appointment—in which he does not believe—are frankly pathetic? The real problem is that there is a basic difference between business and Government ethics. That is why we totally object to the attempt to bring into Government an arms salesman — no doubt a very good one — when the relationship between Government and defence manufacturers, at the best of times, is so close and symbiotic.

Mr. Lee: It is pathetic that the Opposition are not prepared to support the payment of a relevant and attractive salary to ensure that we bring into Government the people whom we believe will do a first-class procurement job.

AST 404 Helicopter

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision on the purchase of the light support helicopters specified in AST 404.

Mr. Butler: Following recent exercises, including Exercise Lionheart last autumn, the Army's requirements for helicopter support are being reviewed. Until that review is complete, I regret that decisions on AST 404 will remain in abeyance. Meanwhile, my Department is in discussion with Westland about other possible Ministry of Defence orders.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not wrong that the Army can change its specification at such a late stage? Is it not intolerable that companies—such as Westland Helicopters—which have tendered in good faith can be let down because the Army is again changing its requirements?

Mr. Butler: I understand the reaction that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of the company, but I think he should realise that the staff target is at a very early stage and that it would be strange if one were to force on any of the armed forces something which did not meet its requirements. The Army feels that it may need a larger helicopter, with a greater payload, in the interests of battlefield mobility, and it is now examining that.

Mr. McNamara: Can the Minister say when the review will be completed? In view of the criteria that he used for the PC9, will he accept that at present the WG30 is 40 per cent. cheaper than the super Puma and 30 per cent. cheaper than the Black Hawk, and that, terms of jobs at Westland and the future of that company, an early decision is needed?

Mr. Butler: As the Army has not confirmed its requirements, and as it is not certain that finance is available, the matter of choice between the various aircraft has not yet arisen.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he understands that most of us are speaking, not on behalf of the company, but on behalf of constituents who work in the company? Will he give a further assurance that he will keep in the closest possible contact

not only with the Department of Trade and Industry, but with the Department of Employment so that he can understand the implications of this order not being awarded to Westland at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Butler: I am fully aware of these matters. I am working closely with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, and we will come to a decision as soon as we can, but, in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I must say that the decision is likely to be some months away.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that a worrying feature here is the change in the staff requirement at a late stage? Will he look at procedures whereby staff requirements are drawn up in order to ensure that industry is not too often put into this difficult position?

Mr. Butler: As I said a few moments ago, we cannot expect the armed services to take something which they do not want. They have seen fit to review their requirements. I should also say that the WG30 in its present condition will not meet the staff target, and would do so only with the advanced engineering gearbox and the new Rolls-Royce motor, and that by itself will cause some delay.

British Army of the Rhine

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of maintaining the British Army of the Rhine; if he has any plans to reduce it; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stanley: As I told my hon. Friend on 13 November 1984, the cost of the British Army of the Rhine is estimated to be some £1,796 million in 1984–85 at 1984–85 Estimates prices. The Government have no plans to reduce BAOR.

Mr. Proctor: In the light of constraints on the defence budget, will my hon. Friend reconsider the prospects for returning to the traditional British policy of not maintaining a standing army on the mainland of Europe?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are part of a collective alliance, and that our NATO Allies and friends expect us to contribute in the way that we do—and we do so, I think, extremely successfully and cost-effectively—to safeguard and preserve deterrence in a key element of the central front.

Mr. Johnston: Will the Minister assure us that the Trident programme will have no effect on the availability of resources to BAOR?

Mr. Stanley: As we have said many times, the Trident programme is part of the total defence programme. What is spent on Trident cannot be spent elsewhere, but we believe that the expenditure on Trident is a way in which we can achieve an important continuation of our deterrent capability.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is it not a fact that BAOR is already the worst equipped of all the major armed forces in the NATO central front, having less artillery than the Dutch Army, and fewer tanks than the French or Germans? Is it not inevitable that the Trident programme will make the situation massively worse in this vital area of Britain's defence capability?

Mr. Stanley: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are carrying through one of the most important re-equipment programmes of BAOR, and that re-equipment programme directly reflects the fact that the Government have increased defence expenditure by approximately one fifth in real terms, while the Opposition said at the last election that they intended substantially to reduce conventional defence expenditure.

Royal Dockyards

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce his proposed changes in the management structures of Her Majesty's dockyards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lee: We intend to complete our deliberations as soon as possible. Assuming that this results in radical proposals for change, there will then be a period of consultation before a decision is taken on future arrangements for the royal dockyards.

Mr. Hicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the need for an early decision, in view of the fact that delay creates not only rumour and speculation, but, increasingly, unease among employees at the dockyards?

Mr. Lee: We are aware of the need for an early and speedy decision. The deliberations have taken longer than we had imagined. The original uncertainty was caused by the leak of the Levene report at Rosyth.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Fatchett: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Fatchett: In her weekend speech the Prime Minister referred to various critics of the Government's policy as cuckoos. Will she explain whether that term is now extended to the growing number of critics in her own party? Will she also explain whether she feels that characterising the Government's critics as cuckoos is consistent with the language of reconciliation to which she has made recent references?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is no. We have the occasional grouse, but nothing else.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most welcome aspects of the Budget is the Government's intention to simplify the tax and social security systems, so enabling people at last to understand how they can interact, and enabling us at last to eliminate the unemployment trap? Will she ensure that this necessary and fundamental reform is pushed ahead without delay?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. We shall try to push ahead as fast as we can. It is particularly important in that it will help many employers to take on more young people than they are doing at present.

Mr. Kinnock: There are now more than 1 million unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds in Britain. Apparently the Prime Minister will be seeing 25 of them at 10 Downing Street this afternoon. When she meets them, will she look them in the eye and honestly say to them, as she said on Saturday in Newcastle:
A bright and confident future beckons"?
If she says that to them, will she expect them to believe her?

The Prime Minister: I look forward to seeing a number of young people on a private visit to No. 10. I shall indeed point out that the economy is expanding, that investment is at an all-time record, that standards of living are at an all-time high and that we are making great extensions to the youth training scheme, from which I hope they will benefit. I shall also have there a number of people who will, I hope, be able to answer their questions and be of practical assistance.

Mr. Kinnock: That cuts no ice, and it cuts no dole queues, either. Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that until she makes radical changes in economic policy—as many, including sensible people in her own party, are advising—there will be no hope of offering real jobs to young people? Will she have the courage to say that direct to them this afternoon?

The Prime Minister: No, because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He does not deny that output is at an all-time record and that investment is at an all-time high. I assume that he supports the youth training scheme. We shall get more jobs when we have more people producing goods and services which everyone will buy. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman knows how to do it, perhaps he will start a business.

Mr. McCrindle: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the interrelation between taxation and the social security system. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that while the reviews which have been undertaken aim at gaining better value for money within a £40 billion budget, at least as important will he an attempt on behalf of the Government to pay more to the most deserving people within society, while reviewing benefits which arguably are being paid to those who are in less need?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a major review of social services under way. That review will be published, and it will be for the House to debate it. In the meantime, I take account of what my hon. Friend has said. I think he was saying that quite a number of people seem to get perhaps more than they need, while others, who are most deserving, perhaps do not get sufficient.

Mr. Steel: Following the massacre in South Africa at the weekend, does the Prime Minister agree that 25 years on from Sharpeville all the cosmetic improvements in that country do not hide the fundamental evil and injustice of apartheid? Apart from lecturing the South African ambassador, what proposals has she to help end the systematic oppression of the majority of the population?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a statement and called in the ambassador of South Africa to make it clear that we were gravely concerned at the events on the anniversary of


Sharpeville and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to reaffirm once again that one cannot distinguish between people on the basis of colour. We support and uphold the resolution of the United Nations. I think it particularly sad and deplorable that this event came just at a time when other things seemed to be moving. For example, it was only a few days earlier that we had heard that the policy which we totally deplored of forced removals had been suspended. That was good news. Therefore, we were particularly concerned about the shootings.

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: Is the Prime Minister aware that fires are still raging in the Galapagos Islands and that on Isabela 500 giant tortoises are now seriously at risk? [Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches may find this amusing, but I assure them that it is a serious matter. May I repeat the question for the benefit of the Prime Minister? Is she aware of the fires in the Galapagos Islands, and is she aware also that on Isabela 500 giant tortoises are at risk? The Government of Ecuador have asked for international assistance. In view of the close links between this country and the Galapagos Islands, what British Government resources will the Prime Minister make available to rescue the giant tortoises and other endangered species?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of the feeling in the House and elsewhere about this matter. We shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Forth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unanimity is rare in politics? Will she, therefore, undertake that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) completes his review of the financing of local government, and the equivalent review north of the border is completed, we will move to a rapid solution of the local government finance problem, regardless of whether there is total agreement on any one solution?

The Prime Minister: Those studies, both on the rating system and on the reform of local government finance, are under way. I hope that we shall be able to come to an agreed solution. My hon. Friend is right. If everyone sticks to his own pet scheme, we shall not get anywhere. I hope that we shall be able to bring forward proposals which will command sufficient support to put them through.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Lady aware that when, later this afternoon, she meets the young unemployed from Merseyside, they are not likely, because of their bitter experience of many years of unemployment, to believe that there is an expanding economy? Does she agree with the view expressed by Lord Alport yesterday in the Daily Telegraph, that the Conservative party is now a faction and not a real Conservative party, or is she prepared to accept the advice of her right hon. Friend the Member for Old

Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who suggested that the time had come for a change in policy to begin to deal with unemployment?

The Prime Minister: We shall continue the policies announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and enlarged upon during the several Budget debates, which were well received and won excellent majorities in the House upon their conclusion.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the teaching profession wishes to enjoy a higher level of public esteem the best thing that its members can do is to end this damaging action, which is hitting the interests of the worst-off children, and get back to work full-time?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I thought that Lady Warnock made interesting remarks during the Dimbleby lecture, pointing out that if teachers act in this way they will forfeit their prestige and the esteem in which they have always been held.

Mr. Chris Smith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read the report of today of the Rating and Valuation Association, which reveals that the average rate rise in England and Wales for the coming financial year will be 9 per cent.? Has the right hon. Lady noticed that this has happened even with all the paraphernalia of rate-capping targets, penalties, grant-related expenditure assessments and similar controls which her Government have introduced? Will the right hon. Lady now have the honesty to admit that the real reason for such a large increase is the reduction in rate support grant to London boroughs, from 61 to 48 per cent., under her Government? Will the right hon. Lady tell the ratepayers that she is responsible for their rate increases?

The Prime Minister: I have not read that report. I heard a comment from an hon. Member from a sedentary position that our great problems with rating are centred on Scotland. If councils' spending had continued at its previous rate of increase, it would now be £4 billion higher. The growth in councils' spending has dramatically slowed over the past five years, increasing by no more than it did in an average single year in the 1970s. In fact, ratepayers have a great deal for which to thank the Government for reducing Government expenditure. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take notice of the fact that the average precept is 30p higher under Labour county councils than it is under Conservative county councils.

Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. friend aware that there was warm applause in the country as well as in the hall for her weekend speech, when she emphasised the importance of the wealth creators in our society and the fact that responsibility for law and order is not restricted to the police and the Government? As the best hope for this country's future lies in my right hon. Friend's policies and philosophies, will she and her Ministers continue to repeat this message loudly and clearly throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: It is a message which most people understand, because it is common sense that one must have policies which pursue the creation of wealth,


before that wealth can be distributed or more jobs can be created. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wardell: As dental charges will increase from 1 April to £17—which means that 100 per cent. of the costs will have to be borne by the patient—and as 40 per cent. of all the extra costs above £17, to a maximum of £115, will have to be paid by the patient, will the Prime Minister give advice to those people whose income is only slightly above the supplementary benefit level, the occupational pensions allowance and the family income supplement on how they must pay these extra charges?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, 46 per cent. of chargeable treatment is given free and those who pay contribute on average 60 per cent. of the cost, which is less than the maximum charge. The hon. Gentleman's question implies that the increase in charges will result in a reduction in the number of people taking dental treatment. That is not so. The number of courses of

dental treatment is up from 27 million in 1979 to 31 million now. I think that most people would put dental treatment fairly high on their list of priority spending.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Stanbrook: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the apparent willingness of the British Government, in company with the minority of countries, such as Greece and Denmark, to stand aside from developments in the European Community designed to make it more effective? Is this not a dangerous tendency? Will my right hon. Friend instruct her Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to promise full support to the Community in its proposals for progress for the benefit of us all, and not to drag their feet?

The Prime Minister: We have taken a leading part in all deliberations on the Community, which are resulting in a much better financial structure and a much more realistic policy for agriculture. As my hon. Friend knows, we are now attempting to persuade the Community to complete the internal market and take a number of steps towards freeing trade, which will be of great help to this country.

Schools

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the White Paper published today setting out the Government's policies for school education in England and Wales. Copies of the White Paper and a summary are available in the Vote Office.
The Government have two principal aims—to raise the standards achieved by pupils of all abilities and to secure the best possible return for the resources invested in school education.
We have set these aims because education at school needs to develop to the full the capacities of every pupil, and to promote the nation's ability to seize the challenging opportunities of a technological and competitive world. The schools need to build on Britain's values and traditions and on its ethnic diversity; they need to educate pupils to their own full potential and for the responsibilities of citizenship and for working life.
Both what is taught and how it is taught need to serve these purposes better than is now the case in many schools. National standards would rise dramatically if all schools matched the present achievements of the best comparable schools. The Government have a duty in law to take a lead in securing that all our schools have an effective curriculum effectively delivered by those responsible.
Together with their partners in the education service and with the customers of the service, the Government will take action in four broad areas of policy to raise achievement at all levels of ability.
First, we shall continue to take the lead in promoting agreement about the objectives and content of the curriculum in primary, secondary and special schools. The curriculum should be broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated for variations in pupils' abilities and aptitudes. Agreed and explicit objectives will help to focus the efforts of local education authorities and schools and motivate pupils towards aims shared also by parents and employers.
Secondly, we are taking action on examinations. As the House will recall, we are establishing the general certificate of secondary education. It will serve the curriculum better than the examinations it replaces. It will put a new emphasis on understanding, on the application of knowledge, and on oral and practical skills. Through the development of grade criteria it will award grades only to those who attain the required standard in defined aspects of each subject. We shall introduce a new examination, the AS-level, to broaden the programme of students on A-level courses. The new certificate of pre-vocational education will offer a wide range of courses for other students over 16. We are working towards the establishment by the end of the decade of a national system of records of achievement for all school leavers which will record not only examination successes but other achievements at school.
Thirdly, we shall promote teaching quality by improving the professional effectiveness of teachers and the management of the teaching force. Better initial training will result from the reform of courses which the Government have already set in hand. We intend to make in-service training more effective by funding it through a

specific grant to local education authorities. We shall seek an early opportunity to legislate for that change, as I informed the House last week.
We intend that it should be a condition of the grant that satisfactory arrangements are made for identifying and meeting the training needs of individuals and the service. Adequate arrangements for appraising the performance of each teacher are essential for the career development of individual teachers and for the good management of the teacher force. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will seek powers to allow us to require local education authorities to make such arrangements if we consider such action necessary.
Fourthly, we shall develop the contribution that governing bodies can make to good school education. In the light of the response to the Green Paper "Parental Influence at School", the Government have decided, as soon as the legislative programme permits, to propose two measures to the House: first, to entrench the powers of governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools in relation to the functions of the local education authority and the head teacher; secondly, to reform the composition of those governing bodies so that there can be an equal number of parent and LEA-appointed governors, and teachers and the local community will also be represented, with no single interest predominating.
The programme of action will take time to accomplish in its entirety. It may be difficult to achieve it in full within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil, but much progress can be made if the education service gets the most out of what is available. The more it succeeds, the stronger its future claim on resources.
Much of what needs to be done is neither a question of money nor of action by the Government alone. The education service is a partnership. Each partner has important responsibilities that the Government intend to preserve. Each can do his job effectively only with the help of the others. Co-operation and professional commitment have secured notable achievements and built up many strengths in our schools. The Government believe that co-operation and professional commitment will continue to be the norm within the education service. We believe that local education authorities, the Churches and other voluntary bodies, governors, teachers, parents, employers, and all others will join in the common endeavour to make standards of achievement and behaviour at every school as good as they can be and need to be in the interest of the pupils and our national future.

Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Secretary of State accept that raising the levels of achievement of all our children is an objective that we in the Opposition strongly support? However, apart from the sensible decision to abandon his harebrained scheme to give parents a majority on governing bodies, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is new either in his statement or in the White Paper? In that document, we search in vain for the answer to the $64,000 question of whether the Secretary of State can deliver. Quite apart from the HMI reports, the Secretary of State himself admits that it may be difficult to achieve his programme.
within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil.
So why are the Government proposing to cut local authority education spending by 9 per cent. in real terms between 1984–85 and 1987–88, at a time when the number


of pupils is estimated to fall by 5 per cent.? In short, the right hon. Gentleman is attempting the hopeless task of squeezing a quart out of a pint pot.
Is the Secretary of State further aware that his remarks about partnership ring very hollow in a week when half a million children's education is being disrupted by the teachers' dispute? [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"] Wait for it. The parents of those children will not understand why, instead of his empty words this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman has not announced a new peace initiative. The truth is that the Secretary of State is fiddling while Rome burns.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am genuinely glad that there is an objective that both sides of the House share—to raise the achievements in behaviour, and in examinations at all levels of ability, of children at school.
It is extremely sad that teachers have chosen to disrupt the schooling of millions of children. The teacher unions seem to be in the business of rejecting. They rejected a pay offer. They rejected arbitration. They rejected—refused even to consider — a discussion on structure and appraisal.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about resources. In his comparison, he ignored two factors. First, he had not taken into account the share that education could expect of the unallocated margin. Secondly, for the later years to which he referred, he ignored the crucial point that the spending proposals for distribution between local authority services are provisional.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what the White Paper contains that is new. There are the notable initiatives—already decided and put into preparation by the Government — of improving teacher selection and teacher training, seeking agreement on the objectives of the curriculum, transforming the examination system and introducing records of achievement. All those initiatives, already announced, are drawn together in the White Paper so that people may understand the interaction between all the Government's proposals.
In addition, however, the White Paper announces the Government's decisions on AS-levels, on a massive extension of in-service training and on the readiness of the Government to ask Parliament for specific grant powers in connection with in-service training. The White Paper includes new announcements on the readiness of the Government, if necessary, to seek parliamentary authority—

Mr. Radice: The right hon. Gentleman has said that many times.

Sir Keith Joseph: This is the first time that the Government have formally announced that they will seek parliamentary authority for specific grant powers in connection with in-service training, with extra resources being provided, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We confirm in the White Paper that we shall, if necessary, be ready to ask Parliament's authority to require LEAs to appraise teachers. Finally, there are a number of announcements in the White Paper on the governance of schools and on truancy. There is plenty of new material.

Mr. David Madel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will he a special welcome for the additional funds for appropriate in-service

training courses? Is that not further evidence of the Government's commitment to work with the teaching profession to ensure that the education service is backed by appropriate skills and training? If teachers want to retrain, the necessary funds will be available.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is much in the White Paper that teachers should welcome, including rendering in-service training more effective and increasing the resources for it.

Mr. Clement Freud: I too welcome the in-service training provisions, but will the Secretary of State assure the House that the introduction of AS-levels will not further disadvantage children from small and under-funded sixth forms, and make it more difficult for them to enter tertiary education at the expense of those in the private sector?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that school governors — we welcome the fact that there will no longer be contention among them — will be properly trained? Will the right hon. Gentleman find money for that training, and will he assure us that it will not be taken from teachers' salaries?
Finally, the Secretary of State said that education is a partnership. That is something that few schoolmasters would currently agree with. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that it takes two to tango?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am only too eager to co-operate with teachers and local education authorities in pursuance of the objectives which the whole House shares. Higher education has responded to the consultation that it will not disadvantage those who have not had the opportunity to take AS-levels. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the Government's decision on the governance of schools and I hope that it still ranks as what the hon. Gentleman has referred to as high-octane Liberal policy.

Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper presents a programme for education possibly as great and important as the Education Act 1944, when taken as a whole? Does he further agree that the teaching profession would be well advised not to listen to the weasel words from the Opposition Front Bench of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who, I believe, does not mean what he said? Nor should they be advised to listen to the leadership of the National Union of Teachers and others who are sowing dissent and low morale in the teaching profession. Will my right hon. Friend encourage teachers to read the document and consider it carefully, as I think that they will find in it much that is rewarding?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Previous schools White Papers have rightly had to concentrate on scale and structure. This one addresses itself to the even harder questions of quality and effectiveness.

Mr. Martin Flannery: When will the Secretary of State admit to himself and his party that, according to Her Majesty's Inspectorate, cuts in education are so horrific that schools all over the country have quite insufficient money to carry on with? Is he aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently visited schools in fairly plush areas where the capitation allowance has been doubled by parents? Does he believe that, in working-class areas with massive


unemployment, parents can give any money when their children do not receive a proper education? Is he aware that the struggle is going on partly because morale is so low?

Sir Keith Joseph: HMI also emphasised that the quality and effectiveness of management varies sharply between local education authorities and that there is much capacity for redeploying resources from less effective to more effective educational purposes. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that spending in real terms per child at school is at record high levels? Will he also bear it in mind that the pupil-teacher ratio is at record low levels? Will he also bear it in mind that it is open to a local education authority to raise the capitation allowance—

Mr. Flannery: With rate capping?

Sir Keith Joseph: —where parents cannot be expected to provide as much help as those in more prosperous areas.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Did I hear my right hon. Friend say that he would be asking Parliament to require a regular appraisal of teachers, thus linking pay and performance? If so, could that not go a long way towards overcoming the wicked strikes which damage children in special schools and those sitting examinations? Will he remind the Opposition that the Houghton award lost its value under a Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 and point out that it is high time their wicked hypocrisy ended?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend has failed to notice that the Government's intention to legislate is expressed as "only if necessary" or some such words. We still hope that, sooner or later, teachers and their employers will reach a bargain on appraisal which will be good for education, negotiable and affordable. If they do not reach such a bargain before long, the Government have confirmed their intention to ask Parliament for authority to require local education authorities to appraise teachers. However, in that confirmation, there is no mention of the word "money."

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a great deal to criticise in the statement and White Paper ? However, I warmly welcome his decision to reintroduce the mandatory requirement for specialist qualifications for teachers of deaf and blind children, and assure him that the all-party disablement group will warmly welcome that announcement and decision.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and take his criticism as purely ritual.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, will he tell the House, first, how he believes that it will improve teachers' morale; secondly, how it will enable local education authorities to operate more efficiently; and, thirdly, to what extent it will increase the professionalism of the education service for its customers—the children?

Sir Keith Joseph: To ease my hon. Friend's problems—I know that she will read the White Paper in full—a summary explaining all such matters has been produced and is extremely readable. In brief, there is much in the White Paper to raise teachers' morale, such as the

confirmation of recognition of their central importance, an expansion of the network of in-service training, and the sort of unification of the exam systems which they have long wanted. There is plenty in the White Paper to improve the effectiveness of education, which we all want.

Mr. Derek Foster: If the Secretary of State is really interested in the achievement of all our children, does he not realise that the motivation of teachers is absolutely crucial to teaching quality? Surely he must be aware that teaching morale is at an all-time low because of cuts in the education service and the continual denigration of their professionalism by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends.

Sir Keith Joseph: I readily recognise that the changing trend of pupil numbers from expansion to contraction has entailed a great loss of promotion opportunities for teachers. I readily recognise that that has implications for morale, which is why it is so much in the teachers' interests to welcome the opportunities that could come to all effective teachers from an appraisal system, and why I think they are so misguided in wanting to retain the present informal appraisal system which is in existence, as they know, and in refusing to co-operate in designing a formal procedure for appraisal, which is enormously to their benefit.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that not a single comment from the Opposition has been truly critical of the White Paper, so much is it in tune with the views within the education world of reasonable and thinking people? Will he also note that his White Paper is quite dramatic in that in many areas, such as the three examination changes and the specific grant for teacher training, he has at last done something which Labour Government after Labour Government under Lord Mulley and Shirley Williams could not bring themselves to do, just as they could not bring themselves to set up a youth training scheme? Regarding school governing bodies, will he say that the motivation of pupils depends on the involvement of parents, that parents should be the largest single element and that the local authority element must no longer dominate and be open to the political abuse that we have so often witnessed?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. It should be a comfort to schools and teachers that the broad objectives of the White Paper are shared by both sides of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: No.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have heard them approved by Front Bench representatives of the official Opposition. I recognise that the Opposition imagined that they would be able to spend more money on schools, although I think that that is just another sign of the never-never land in which they live. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I have not had the opportunity to read the White Paper in depth, but one section which is of concern to me relates to the education of under-fives. That section states that, although the Government support the education of under-fives, they do not propose to spend more money on it. Is this not an area where more money should be spent? If that is a symptom of the entire White Paper, I cannot see how the education service will be vastly improved by it.

Sir Keith Joseph: I invite the hon. Gentleman to join the real world. There are not, and will not be under any Government, enormous new resources to spend on education. We are concentrating on the compulsory age range. That is why in the chapter about under-five education we undertake to maintain at least the present proportion of the population attending under-five schools and do not give false promises to extend it substantially.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that our schools represent an enormous national investment in terms of educational resources? Is he aware that many of those who have left school and who wish to achieve some of the educational qualifications which they lamentably failed to achieve when they were at school, now wish to have access to those resources? Will he confirm that continuing education will be included in discussions on the White Paper, so that the nation might get a better return from the investment of those educational resources?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, although it is outside the age bracket addressed by the White Paper. The Government are concerned with, and will be formulating proposals in connection with the wider access to, continuing education.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Secretary of State said that this is not only a question of money, but he must agree that it is crucially a question of teachers being able to implement his proposals. Does he understand that teachers all over the country feel under-valued and let down by the Government? The Government are, rightly, asking them to do a challenging and difficult job, but with fewer resources, less capitation—whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say—in buildings that are less well maintained, and for wholly inadequate pay. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State recognised that money is an essential ingredient in implementing any proposals for education? Is it not about time that he fought for the education service? His colleagues in other Departments are prepared to fight for their budgets. Why does he not show the education profession that he is prepared to fight for the investment mentioned by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin)?

Sir Keith Joseph: I recognise that teachers have a hard job, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise, too, that many schools around the country are islands of excellence in which, in conditions completely comparable to those schools where there is less excellence, teachers manage to produce remarkably effective results in behaviour and in academic performance. What that minority of schools can do can be done throughout the system, and that is what the White Paper addresses itself to.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his White Paper will be widely welcomed, especially by parents, who will have a much bigger say on governing bodies? Will he say something about how teacher assessment will work, and the role that headmasters and the governing bodies will play in that assessment?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have set aside £1 million of taxpayers' money to run a series of experiments in appraisal, so that the most suitable system can be judged. I imagine that when appraisal is, as it is bound to be, introduced, it will be subject to discussion among the local education authorities, teachers and the holder of my

office. Differing combinations of assessors will be involved, including headmasters, heads of department, peers of the teacher, each judging reciprocally, and no doubt representatives of the employers. The pilot schemes are intended to judge the best combination.

Mr. Ken Eastham: The Secretary of State referred to assessing teachers, but will he consider giving teachers the opportunity to make an assessment of the Department of Education on the resources that it is providing for teachers to do their job? Will he comment on the special problems of inner cities where there is high poverty, many one-parent families, children who are underfed and a lack of the other normal things that are essential to education? What special additional assistance will the Secretary of State he giving to such areas?

Sir Keith Joseph: There is a system available by which teachers as citizens make judgment on the Department of Education—it is called a general election. As for inner-city children, it is because the opportunities of children depend so much on the quality of schools that I once again say that it was wicked of the Labour Government to abolish direct grant schools.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people both in and outside the House will be pleased with the White Paper and his statement? Does he agree that highly qualified teachers in specialities in which there is a shortage, such as maths, science and design, can only be properly awarded when there is a proper structure for their appraisal, and the same applies to those in scale 1 whose promotion prospects have been dimmed by the falling rolls?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree, although the problem of recruiting potentially skilled teachers in shortage subjects for which there is a great deal of demand in the world of commerce—such as maths, physics, craft design and technology — will be difficult, although slightly less difficult once the appraisal system is in being.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the Secretary of State understand that, in each of the sectors that he has announced, additional academic, scholastic and organisational burdens will be placed on teachers, particularly in respect of his legislation for compulsory formal assessment? Does he agree that any real partnership requires confidence, and that the spread of excellence of which he speaks can be achieved only by co-ordination and not coercion? Does not his attitude to teachers and the fact that he has produced this booklet this afternoon show that he does not understand this, does not understand the teaching service and therefore should not have introduced the White Paper at this of all times, when schools are in chaos?

Sir Keith Joseph: I marvel that the hon. Gentleman, whose sincerity I do not impugn, could have spoken at such length without mentioning children.

Mr. Spearing: That is what it is all about.

Sir Keith Joseph: Exactly — the White Paper is addressed to the needs of children.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great support for the £100 million available for in-service training but that there will be some


surprise that as much as half of it should be absorbed by covering for teachers having this break during normal teaching hours, especially as, in my area, the majority of teachers carry out their in-service training during the holidays or after school hours? If this practice were followed throughout the country, there would be twice as much available for in-service training for the sum that the Department can provide.

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend may have a point, and in-service training is conducted in holidays as well as in term time and at weekends. Some compensation for the employment of relief teachers is a necessary part of the programme.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a measure of this Government's attitude to the teaching profession and to education generally that, at a time when the education system is in turmoil due to the Government's actions in refusing to pay the teachers a proper wage, the right hon. Gentleman introduces this White Paper as a cover? Is it not also worth noting that the teachers are striving to make up for lost ground during the six years of this Tory Government, and that compares with the fact that he, as the Secretary of State, and the rest of the Cabinet in one of their first acts when they came to power, made up the lost ground in their own salary while depriving teachers? Why does he not pay the teachers their money and get the education system back on the rails?

Sir Keith Joseph: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman. Teachers lost the full benefit of the 1974 award before the Labour Government left office in 1979. The real value of their pay has gone up 9 per cent. since 1979. Those are the facts.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents must welcome this new approach because the standard of education has given them considerable concern in the past? I draw his attention to the system of appraisal, which, although it will be difficult to establish, is necessary because at the moment there is little difference in pay between the highly qualified teachers and unqualified teachers. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent incident in which a child who condemned the action of teachers who went on strike was disciplined by the school?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend's last reference, which is a sad one. I marvel that Opposition Members, while in general welcoming the purpose of the White Paper, made far less fuss than I would have expected about the wide range of under-achievement. Masses of children under-achieve their potential and I should have thought that there would have been far more emphasis from the Opposition about that. Our desire, like theirs, is to put that right; that is a common bond that I welcome.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important Back Bench day. I shall call as many hon. Members who are rising as possible, but I should like to bring the questions on this statement to an end by quarter past four because there is another statement. Those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call may be able to catch my eye in the subsequent debate on the Easter adjournment motion.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread appreciation of, and respect for, the strategy of better schools that he has set out, as expressing his and the Government's particular concern for the relatively disadvantaged in our society? In this respect, is he aware that there will be particular appreciation of the emphasis placed on grade criteria, records of achievement and more practical orientation for some pupils of curricula and examinations?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that discriminating praise.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be easier to make a good assessment of what we believe to be a sound White Paper if we could have a debate on it? Will he support a call for such a debate?

Sir Keith Joseph: I should welcome such a debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has heard what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: From my right hon. Friend's description of the White Paper, it sounds positive and extremely exciting. He spoke about education for the under-fives earlier. Can he reassure the House that the present study of education for the under-fives, which is due to report in the autumn, will not be overlooked and that action on it will not be denied by the contents of the White Paper?

Sir Keith Joseph: I welcome praise, even when it is followed by a "but". We take the effective education of the under-fives seriously, but we cannot undertake to find more resources for them. We shall certainly study any evidence produced about how it can be made more effective.

Dr. Ian Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the posture taken by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the White Paper will be welcomed in the country and in the world of education? In considering the content of the curricula in schools, will he give the House an assurance that more emphasis will be given to the role of wealth creation in society, so that there is in schools a climate in which the culture of wealth education can survive and flourish?

Sir Keith Joseph: Indeed, the Government regard it as an important ingredient to try to inject into the school system and into higher and further education.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome this confirmation of our educational objectives. How does my right hon. Friend hope to resolve the fundamental dilemma, which has existed for a long time, of finding sufficient resources at a time of financial restraints, when we require to attract and sustain the quality teaching force that we all hope to have within the state sector?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, it can partly be achieved by more effective deployment of the massive resources that the education system already has. There will come a time when no doubt that will be fully exploited, when more resources may prove to be necessary. Plenty can be done within existing resources if they are sensibly used.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated upon his sensitive consultation on


the enhanced responsibilities of school governors. However, is he satisfied that he has hit the median line between on the one hand governors simply rubber-stamping the views of the local authority and on the other hand parents holding the rest of the ratepayers to ransom?

Sir Keith Joseph: I searched the country for supporters of my proposal for parental governor majorities but found so few friends that I had to strike a compromise—which I believe will be effective.

Mr. Harry Cohen: At one stage the Secretary of State described his proposals as broad, balanced and relevant, but is not the opposite the truth? Will they not be more restrictive? The Secretary of State is taking greater central Government control over curriculum, in-service training, what is taught by teachers and the appraisal of teachers. When that is coupled with control over teachers' jobs, pay and conditions of service and with the cuts because of the rate capping of local education authorities, it can only mean in reality a deterioration in the standards of education generally. The current education policy is not relevant. Youngsters are not being educated for work because the jobs are not there; nor are they being educated in life skills.

Sir Keith Joseph: How can the hon. Gentleman speak of an assault upon teachers' jobs, when teachers have one of the most secure jobs in the country?

Mr. Radice: What about redundancies?

Sir Keith Joseph: Voluntary redundancies. If the holder of my office does not venture a view on the curriculum, who else can lead the partnership towards more agreed objectives? As for jobs, the function of the schools in preparing children for the world of work and for being independent, or perhaps employers, as well as developing their cultural potential is part of the several parallel strands that are necessary to get this country once again more fully employed.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement and the White Paper are much welcomed by Conservative Members? His reference to governors and to the fact that local authorities will not have majority control is also to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while trying to make schools better than they are now, the best course to take would be either to make all teachers subject to the Employment Protection Acts or to give them not the right to strike?

Sir Keith Joseph: I should be interested to know how my hon. Friend thinks one could achieve his last point.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: Is it not the case that the greatest obstacle to raising teaching standards has been the attitude of the leadership of the National Union of Teachers, which has repeatedly shown itself to be more interested in disrupting education through strikes than in rewarding excellence? Will the Secretary of State therefore welcome the initiative of the more moderate teachers' unions which seek to co-operate in raising standards?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, heartily, but I must in fairness say that the National Union of Teachers has expressed interest—indeed, a desire for some system of appraisal, so there may be some common ground, despite the present discontent.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: May I give a special welcome to the requirement that schools should make a statement of their aims and educational objectives? This would, I believe, harness the efforts of the teachers, the aspirations of parents and the interests of the children to a common end. May I ask the Secretary of State to give an assurance that such a statement of aims will be put in plain English which can be understood by everybody and not wrapped up in arcane educational jargon?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes. As an example, I should like schools to accept such new objectives as something like Wordsworth and word processing

Mr. Michael Stern: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that section of the White Paper which lays down new guidelines for minimum sizes of schools? In particular, will he in due course pay attention to the problems caused in certain areas by authorities laying down unrealistic sizes of school entry forms which mean that those schools remain under-subscribed while adjoining schools are over-subscribed?

Sir Keith Joseph: I suspect that my hon. Friend is hoeing a local furrow, but I agree with him.

Mr. Tony Baldry: With the introduction of AS-levels, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to publish a simple guide for employers which will set out the role of and the differences between O-levels, A-levels, AS-levels, S-levels, CSE, GCE, 16-plus, 17-plus, CPVE, GCSE, BTEC, TVEI and YTS?

Sir Keith Joseph: I appreciate the enjoyment my hon. Friend has had in asking that question, but I have to tell him that the days of CSE and O-levels are numbered.

Mr. Tony Favell: Even though next to the bottom of the class, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the great concern that he has shown for the deaf, the blind and those suffering from partial hearing by refusing to accept the ACSET report, even though it would have saved money, and instead for having listened to those who really know about these matters — the parents of children who suffer from this kind of affliction and those who devote their lives to teaching them?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the world of the deaf and the blind is very articulate.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I welcome my right hon. Friend's brave initiative, but does the White Paper address practical, technical and vocational training for children so as to fit them for the world of work?

Sir Keith Joseph: The technical and vocational education initiative is now at the pilot stage in a majority of local education authorities. The intention is that the extra money for in-service training should be used primarily for TVEI-related disciplines precisely in order to provide a larger pool of teachers with skills to teach the subjects which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has confirmed this afternoon that there is little new in the White Paper? Is he also aware that he has confirmed that educational expenditure by local authorities will fall by 9 per cent. in real terms over the next three years? Incidentally, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, the last two years do not include the unallocated margin, a point which he always tries to raise. It is also


a bit thick for the Secretary of State to claim credit for the Clegg award, as I heard him do this afternoon —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did. Cannot the Secretary of State understand that there is no way in which he can achieve his plans without the support of the teaching profession? I repeat that the time is right for the Secretary of State to take an initiative in the teachers' dispute.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is still wrong. The last two years of his comparisons ignore the fact that the figures for distribution of expenditure are, explicitly, on a provisional basis. Why should not the Conservative Government take credit for the Clegg award, which was paid during our time in office? Of course the teachers are partners. Effective education cannot conceivably be delivered without effective teachers. It is in order to improve the effectiveness of teachers that much of this White Paper is addressed. The hon. Gentleman often shows evidence of generosity, but in this case he is being very grudging.

Doctors and Dentists

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about medical and dental manpower.
Following the report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education in 1968 and the earlier McNair report on dental manpower, a decision was taken to embark on a major programme of medical and dental school expansion. The purpose of that expansion programme was to achieve a position in which we were training, in this country, enough doctors and dentists to meet our needs. The Health Service had already become heavily dependent on doctors and dentists from other countries to whom we owe a considerable debt. They have enabled us to make good the shortfall in supply which arose from the inadequate number of graduates from our own medical and dental schools.
The expansion programme begun in the late 1960s is now largely complete. The Government therefore have a responsibility to re-examine the supply of and demand for doctors and dentists. A review of dental manpower was completed in 1983 and led us to conclude that the output from dental schools was in danger of leading to an oversupply. We accordingly agreed, following discussions with the profession, to reduce the intake to dental schools by 10 per cent.
I am today publishing a report by the advisory committee for medical manpower planning, which comprised officials from the health departments and representatives of the main professional bodies. The report contains different projections of the likely future pattern of supply and demand for doctors. There are many factors which will affect the future balance, including the level of output from medical schools, the extent to which women doctors remain in active practice and the number of overseas doctors coming here. I shall want to discuss with the medical profession the implications of the report on the intake to medical schools, on the medical staffing of hospitals and on postgraduate training.
The Government have, however, concluded that it is now necessary to prepare for the position which the expansion programme was intended to achieve—that is, where the United Kingdom is essentially self-sufficient in its supply of doctors and dentists. At present, overseas doctors and dentists have almost unrestricted access to this country. We have therefore decided to bring them more into line with the immigration rules applying to other groups. But we shall wish to retain the important role which this country has traditionally fulfilled of providing postgraduate training to doctors and dentists from other countries who can come here for periods of specialist training before returning to put those specialist skills into practice.
To give effect to this policy, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of the necessary changes to the immigration rules. Briefly, these changes will have the following effects from 1 April. Doctors and dentists from overseas who wish to become general medical and dental practitioners will need to comply with the relevant entry provisions for the self-employed. All other doctors and dentists, with the exception of those intending to undertake


a period of postgraduate training, will be subject to normal work permit arrangements. Doctors and dentists seeking entry for the purpose of postgraduate training in hospitals will be admitted for a period of up to four years. After four years in this country they will be able to stay only if extensions of stay are granted under the normal immigration and employment provisions. A similar permit-free period for postgraduate training will be available to overseas nationals graduating here. The changes will not apply to the doctors and dentists from the European Community who have free entry to this country for employment.
The changes are, I believe, a sensible step for us to take at this stage. They do not in any way affect the position of overseas doctors and dentists currently working here. They will, however, make clear to those who come in the future the basis on which they are being admitted and they will ensure that we do not encourage doctors and dentists to come here with expectations which the Health Service cannot fulfil. They will also enable the Health Service to plan its use of medical and dental manpower more effectively.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that in principle we welcome a statement on medical and dental manpower? It is long overdue, since the Government have been sitting on the report by the advisory committee on medical manpower planning for well over a year without publishing it, even though it contains information essential for resolving current manpower problems. Nearly two years ago the Minister of State promised a review of dental manpower planning for last year, but that never transpired.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Royal Commission report in 1979 recommended regular and more frequent reviews of medical manpower—to take place about every two years? Since this is the first such review in the last six years, will the Secretary of State undertake such reviews about every two years?
On what basis does the Secretary of State plan medical manpower requirements since the Government stopped the collection of medical unemployment statistics three years ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at least 2,000 doctors and 10,000 nurses and midwives are on the dole? If that is correct, how does he intend to remove them from the dole queues whilst steadily increasing medical schools' intake?
On the question of consultant expansion, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition strongly support the view of the Social Services Select Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), in its 1981 report that a much higher proportion of patient care should be provided by qualified staff?
Is the Secretary of State further aware that in 1982 the Government suggested doubling the number of consultants over the next 15 years, so creating a growth rate of 4·75 per cent. a year? How does he explain that in the year to September 1984, the last year for which we have statistics, the growth rate was only 2·3 per cent.—less than half that needed to meet the Government's own objective? Do the Government still adhere to that objective? If they do, will the Secretary of State issue an annual target for consultant expansion in each region?
In the interim, what machinery is the right hon. Gentleman setting up to deal with the severe bottleneck

between the registrar and senior registrar grades due to lack of adequate consultant posts, especially in general medicine and general surgery?
The Secretary of State seeks to justify his proposals for overseas doctors on the ground that the United Kingdom is
essentially self-sufficient in its supply of doctors and dentists.
What is the basis for such a bland, complacent statement when, according to a parliamentary answer on 25 February this year, the number of doctors per 1,000 population is 25 per cent. higher in France than it is in the United Kingdom, 50 per cent. higher in Germany and 100 per cent. higher in Italy?
Irrespective of numbers, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the glaring omission from his statement about the quality of training which overseas doctors receive? Is he aware that overseas doctors are severely disadvantaged by the haphazard arrangements for their postgraduate training? They are often shunted off to study unfashionable specialties in the regions and often end up not receiving the training for which they came here and which they have a right to expect.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the system needs a radical overhaul to provide a clear guarantee of the quality of training offered, and of its completion? Does he accept that without further guarantees about standards and quality—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—This is my last point and it is important — simply cutting the numbers of overseas doctors who can stay here, which is all that his statement is about, will seem discriminatory and unfair?

Mr. Fowler: The last point rather spoiled the hon. Gentleman's response. I welcomed many of his comments. I am glad to give him the assurance that the matter will be kept under continual review.
The hon. Gentleman asked about self-sufficiency. Successive Governments have aimed for self-sufficiency. We have reviewed manpower needs from time to time and the advisory committee for medical manpower planning report published today follows the dental manpower review of 1983 upon which we have already acted by reducing the intake of dental schools by 10 per cent. We are preparing for the United Kingdom being essentially self-sufficient. Without such action there is a risk of over-supply.
The hon. Gentleman asked about unemployment. At any time people are changing jobs or between jobs. That is the only problem in that respect. We have already cut the number of British dental students. It would be indefensible to allow unrestricted immigration in such circumstances.
Since 1979 the ratio of doctors to population has improved substantially. Today 6,000 more doctors are employed in the Health Service than when the Labour Government left office.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening so carefully to the representations made to him on this point since there has been widespread concern in the dental and medical professions about the way in which dentists and doctors from anywhere overseas have been allowed to come into the country. Bearing in mind the severe difficulties that this has created in planning the future levels of staffing in


hospitals and in the dental profession, I have no doubt that there will be a widespread wish for me to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his action today.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the aim for the country to become self-sufficient in the training of doctors and dentists will be one that is shared on both sides of the House. Equally, I think that it will be realised that there is no point in training doctors if at the end of training there are no jobs for them.

Mrs. Renée Short: I, too, welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has made the statement today although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, the Select Committee presented its report to him in 1981, and he has had plenty of time in which to discuss these important matters with the medical profession. Why has he not done so in the intervening period? Is he aware that there are still grave problems about the appointment of more consultants in many regions of the country and that as a result junior doctors continue to have to work long hours and have more UMTs placed upon them, and progress has not been made in this regard?
Why has the Secretary of State not yet published the Green Paper on general practice? Surely this will have some bearing on the numbers of doctors employed, and possibly on the numbers of medical students that we may need in future. If he is not taking on board the proposal of the Select Committee that overseas students who wish to come here to train as doctors should undertake some kind of sponsorship scheme, has he considered it, and what are his views?

Mr. Fowler: We have always made it clear that the Green Paper on the family practitioner services will be published in the summer. That remains our intent.
On the general point about training and the position of consultants, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, there has been an expansion in the number of consultants in the last few years, and an expansion of about 2·3 per cent. in the last year. I share the concern of the hon. Lady and, indeed, of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about training. There is concern at present that too many overseas doctors do not receive the most relevant medical training and experience. They find themselves in areas such as geriatrics and psychiatry, which are important but are not necessarily those which are most relevant to their training needs. I want to see that position improved. I have made it clear to the British Medical Association and the medical profession generally that we shall be having urgent discussions about the matter in order to ensure that better and proper training is provided.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I commend my right hon. Friend for his honest and straightforward approach to what is a difficult problem, particularly with regard to overseas doctors. Will he agree that for years we in this country have been draining the poorest nations of their ablest manpower, which has done nothing whatever to assist those countries? Will he reassure those doctors and dentists who are already settled here, and their patients, many of whom have had excellent

service in cities such as Derby and throughout the country, that we have no plans to send such practitioners back from what is now their home?

Mr. Fowler: I certainly give a categorical assurance on my hon. Friend's second point. The position of those who are practising here and, indeed, of those who are in training posts here is entirely safeguarded, and there is no question of their position being worsened by what I have said today. I hope that that is recognised by doctors.
Secondly, I should like to underline the debt that we in this country owe overseas doctors. They have made a tremendous contribution. I wish to put on record my tribute to them.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is not the Secretary of State's statement a capitulation to an existing perception of resources rather than to a better definition of need? As such, would it not be difficult for those with a greater vision of the resources that we need to raise for medical services to reverse it? Is there not a desperate need in many parts of the world for doctors and dentists to whom we should make our training facilities, both primary and postgraduate, more widely available in order to help those worse off than ourselves?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman take on board what has already been suggested, that the implication of his statement on immigration, particularly with regard to the Indian sub-continent, would be more acceptable if it were not for the Government's mean attitude towards immigration? That inevitably encourages a certain suspicion of the Government's intentions which we ought to allay at the first possible opportunity.

Mr. Fowler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore join me in allaying any suspicions that might arise about this measure.
I do not agree with him on the first point. The work permit system gives flexible means of controlling supply. That is the essence of the work permit system. It means that a health authority can apply for a work permit for a person who has been training in this country.
As to the general case, we have increased the number of doctors, and we are planning further to increase it. The aim is for the country to become self-sufficient. I hope that that is an aim in which the hon. Gentleman will join.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which I believe reflects a very encouraging position. Is it not the case not only that the number of medical practitioners is improving, but that the A-level standards achieved by those wishing to enter university to read medicine are at an all-time high?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I think that is right. The standards have improved and are improving.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to give effect to the changes in the immigration rules from 1 April? If that is the case, it gives people six days' notice. Is it the intention that he or his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will rush the immigration rule changes through the House before that date, or will effect be given to the measures without the changes having gone through Parliament?
Secondly, what is the position of doctors and dentists who have made plans to come here and already have posts in hospitals but will be unable to arrive before 1 April? Will there be a period of grace?

Mr. Fowler: The broad position is that any entry that has taken place before 1 April will not be affected. That difficulty always arises with the laying of an order of this kind. If the Opposition so wish, it can be prayed against within 40 days. Any alternative method of action that the hon. Gentleman might propose would be open to severe criticism and might entail disadvantage.

Mr. Den Dover: I recognise that the statement is about doctors and dentists. What is my right hon. Friend able to announce about the nursing numbers, particularly if the comments by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) are correct and there are 10,000 unemployed? In particular, what action might be taken to regulate the numbers per health authority, because there are vast fluctuations between authorities?

Mr. Fowler: I am proposing no change in the entry conditions with regard to the number of nurses coming to this country. It is important to underline the fact that we are making exceptions in regard to members of the medical and dental professions coming to the country for a four-year period of training. I think that the general position of nursing takes us rather wider than the statement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, instead of introducing this Monday Club statement and talking about restricting the numbers of doctors and dentists, he would have done well to recognise that, with waiting lists of approaching 750,000 in the country and the lack of kidney machines, artificial limbs, heart pacemakers and so on, it would make sense not to have any restriction, but to acknowledge the collapse of the National Health Service and to make sure that we increase the number of doctors in order to shorten the current long waiting lists?

Mr. Fowler: Not for the first time the hon. Gentleman is completely out of tune with everything that has been said so far by hon. Members on both sides of the House in response to my statement. There is absolutely no point in training doctors in this country if there are no jobs for them at the end of that training. We have already reduced the number of British dental students. Frankly, it would be indefensible to allow unrestricted immigration in those circumstances. If what the hon. Gentleman said represents the policy that he would wish to advocate, that is up to him, but I doubt whether many people would agree with him.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcome for at least two reasons, first, because it should ensure more jobs for British doctors and dentists and, secondly, because it should ensure greater standards of health care in those countries from which many doctors have come in the past?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why it is important that we should tackle the question of the training of overseas doctors who then return to their countries and put their specialist knowledge into effect.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of the crucial role that overseas doctors have played. For those who will continue to come here for post-graduate training, will he be taking steps, so far as is possible and practicable, to make sure that the training they receive is geared to the skills that they will need when they return to their own countries, bearing in mind the provision that is made in, and outlay devoted to, medicine in those countries? Does he see that type of provision being directed more to hospital service or general practitioner service?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in general outline, as does the medical profession, with representatives of which I have discussed the matter. I shall be having further talks with them about the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, and any improvements that can be made will, I am sure, be welcomed by all concerned.

Mr. Frank Dobson: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that the United Kingdom will be self-sufficient in the supply of doctors, and what doctor-patient ratio is he aiming for? Is he satisfied that we shall be self-sufficient in every specialism, bearing in mind what he said earlier about many overseas doctors tending to concentrate on one or two specialisms? Does his guarantee that the proposals will not affect overseas doctors and dentists now working here apply to overseas doctors and dentists currently training here? Is he seriously asking us to believe that all the 2,000 doctors who are out of work are in the process of changing jobs? He seemed to suggest that. Can he guarantee—perhaps I should address this question to his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office — that once the immigration rules have been changed there will not be any police and immigration officer raids on hospitals to check whether doctors have the necessary passports to allow them to stay in the country?

Mr. Fowler: That last question was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Come to think of it, perhaps it was entirely worthy of him. I can give him the assurance he seeks about training. I repeat that we do not intend by anything being announced today to affect the position of those already here.
In answering his question about self-sufficiency, I ask the hon. Gentleman to study the report of the advisory committee that we have published today. Many people in the medical profession would say that we have not only reached self-sufficiency but are above it. The Government are preparing for the time when the United Kingdom is essentially self-sufficient. Without action at this stage, there is a risk of over-supply. The work permit system will give us flexibility to control supply, while at the same time allowing health authorities, if there are difficulties or shortages, to apply for work permits for doctors in those areas.

Teachers (Pay Dispute)

Mr. Clement Freud: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the teachers' pay dispute and the Secretary of State's handling of the matter.
The matter is specific because the House has a responsibility to consider the matter in the light of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. The House has not fully debated the strike or its consequences, even though it has been going on for nearly a term. We have received from the Secretary of State only a statement in which he made much of the partnership in education. The House needs to know what he meant by partnership.
The matter is important because this is the week when children are making vital choices about their CSEs and 0 and A-level courses for 1987. The disruption this week threatens that process, and its continuation threatens children who are preparing for their examinations. This is the week leading up to the Easter holidays. It is not only union conference time, but it could be a watershed in the dispute, providing an opportunity to find a settlement away from the bitter context of the strike.
The matter is urgent because the House and the country need a considered statement from the Secretary of State, instead of informal and confusing comments. If he continues to do nothing, the strike will drag on, morale will sink still further and the service will face total collapse. Even if the strike peters out — and one suspects, by his inactivity, that that is what the Secretary of State hopes for — is it right that the right hon. Gentleman's ritual girations should become an annual event, a sort of non-fertility right?
It is no longer acceptable to teachers, parents or employers to have to guess what the Secretary of State is thinking, to go on with no leadership from him, with the children caught in the cross-fire. The Secretary of State is the only person who can provide a way out of the present dispute. The House should, therefore, have an opportunity to debate this specific, important and urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the effects of the teachers' dispute.
I have listened with care to the hon. Member, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this House do meet on Thursday 4th April at half-past Nine-o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question — [Mr. Neubert.]

Highlands and Islands Development Board Boundaries Amendment

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board area to include the mountain areas of the Grampian, Central and Tayside Regions. 
Every school child in Scotland knows that there are three clearly defined geographical areas within mainland Scotland. They are the southern uplands, the central lowlands and the highlands. School children also know that within the highland area there are counties called the crofting counties.
Twenty years ago, Parliament, concerned that the crofting counties and the western and northern islands were suffering from rural deprivation and depopulation, acted to reverse the economic decline which had begun some 200 years earlier, with the highland clearances, which began in my constituency. The situation was made worse by the population movement of the industrial revolution and the events resulting from two world wars.
A board was established to deal with those problems. It was decided to locate it in Inverness and it was given special responsibilities for the social and economic development of the crofting counties and the islands. The board was named the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
For the first 10 years of its life, the fact that the board did not have any responsibility for almost 40 per cent. of the mountain area of the Scottish highlands did not seem to present many problems. That relatively happy situation changed, however, when Britain joined the European Economic Community, an important subject to which I shall return.
During the past 10 years there has been a substantial growth in the number of tourists visiting all of the highland area, while at the same time there has been a dramatic decline in the number of jobs on farms and on highland estates. These changes have brought into sharp focus the differences in all forms of assistance which are available to the Highlands and Islands Development Board area and which are not available to the other parts of the highlands. Yet historically, geologically, culturally and socio-economically, the parts of the highlands which are outside the board area are indivisibly highland—by land use pattern, population changes, settlement destabilisation and the uninterrupted contraction of transport, medical and education services.
Because many of the decisions affecting the type and level of assistance or aid available to the less favoured areas within the European Economic Community are now being made in Brussels, it is imperative that the area designated as the highlands of Scotland, and known in Europe as the highlands of Scotland, should be all of the highlands and not just the former crofting counties, otherwise farmers and tourist enterprises which are attempting to create a viable living in the adjoining mountain areas of Grampian, Central and Tayside regions will find themselves excluded from EEC aid which has been especially designed to meet the needs of highland Scotland.
I remind the House that Drumochter, Glen Lyon, Rannoch, Strathardle, Glen Shee, Glen Prosen, Glen


Clova, Glen Esk and the Cairn-o'-Mount are among the most difficult to farm in highland Scotland, yet, in the view of the EEC, they are not part of highland Scotland.
I also remind the House that the Trossachs, Loch Earn, Loch Tummel, Loch Tay, Loch Rannoch, Killin, Aberfeldy, Pitlochry, Balmoral and Braemar are considered to be among the finest of Scottish highland beauty spots, yet the EEC believes that they are outside the Scottish highlands.
We cannot blame the bureaucrats of Europe for not understanding the true situation. That is why I believe that these anomalies must be removed. Some 20 years ago, when we were not a member of the EEC, and when all the decisions affecting highland Scotland were made in this Parliament, it did not matter greatly that the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board did not embrace all of the Scottish highlands. Today I claim that it does matter. That is why I invite the House to support my Bill to alter the boundaries of the board to cover the areas in Grampian, Central and Tayside regions which by reason of their highland character, rural deprivation and remoteness can be regarded as having the same problems as the areas already covered by the board.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Michael Forsyth and Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOUNDARIES AMENDMENT

Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to amend the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board area to include the mountain areas of the Grampian, Central and Tayside Regions: And the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Adjournment (Easter and May Day)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 4th April do adjourn until Monday 15th April and at its rising on Friday 3rd May do adjourn until Tuesday 7th May, and that the House shall not adjourn on Thursday 4th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Jack Ashley: I suggest that the House should not adjourn until we have discussed the abolition of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Section 10 gives total immunity against legal action for negligence which results in the death or serious disability of any service man during his day-to-day activities in peacetime. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have heard the response of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces at Question Time. It was a leisurely, if not complacent, response. His answer that he was simply reviewing section 10 was the same as the answer last year and the year before.
The right hon. Gentleman's reply was very interesting. He seemed to imply that Opposition Members should be satisfied with section 10 simply because the Crown Proceedings Act was enacted by Mr. Attlee's Government, but Mr. Attlee was operating after a devastating world war. It was understandable at that time that human rights should not take a high priority because everything was all at sea.
The Minister said that section 10 had served successive Governments satisfactorily. That is his opinion, but the House should be concerned not only with what the Government think, but with what soldiers, sailors and airmen think about section 10. I should like to quote to the House an extract from a letter that I have received from a couple whom I do not propose to identify. Their son was one of the victims of section 10. They talk not only about their son but about other service men who were injured in peacetime.
The letter says:
Jonathan is dead. He sustained 60 per cent. burns when a Seacat missile was fired by mistake. He was our son. He was just eighteen years old and he died before we could reach him. Steven was seventeen years old. He was thrown from an R. A.F. truck, or was he? No-one seems to know for certain. He was irreparably brain damaged anyway, and died within a few hours. Kevin took rather longer about it. When he was found floating face downwards in a vat of lethal cleaning fluid he was seventeen years old. When he finally died he was twenty one years old and he weighed less than four stone.
There is nothing you can do for Jonathan or Steven or Kevin, but you can help those who have been injured. You can also help to ensure that greater care is taken in the training of all young servicemen.
Those cases that I have quoted are the answer to the Minister, who at Question Time said that successive Governments had been satisfied with the operation of section 10. Service men have not been satisfied, because they have been denied the legal right to take action for negligence when they have been injured. The parents of service men who have been killed have certainly not been satisfied.
I shall not go into the details of my own constituent, Martin Ketterick, except to say that he was horribly injured when abseiling down rocks. He suffered a broken spinal cord and a fractured skull, and he will be a lifelong paraplegic. If he had been able to sue, and if negligence had been proved in court, he might have received


£300,000. Now he is receiving the equivalent of an industrial injuries payment. He was a marine. He was discharged from the service with a gratuity of £3,553 and an invalidity payment of £47 per week.
Preventing service men from sueing is an acceptable doctrine in wartime, because when they sign on they accept the risk of injury or death, but it is unacceptable in peacetime, because it is a deprivation of basic human rights.
The Ministry of Defence has a list of objections to the case for abolishing section 10. First, the Ministry says, "If we abolish section 10 and allow our service men to sue for negligence, we shall endanger discipline." That reason is bogus, because discipline is irrelevant to legal redress. There is no justification for that claim.
Secondly, the Ministry says, "If we allow service men to sue, it will create anomalies." That is absurd, because the basic anomaly is that comparable public servants, such as policemen and firemen, can sue for negligence, and they receive the same invalid pension as soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Thirdly, the Ministry says, "It is not easy to define the dividing line between military action and other activities." That is absolute rubbish. Any service man or ex-service man would soon put the Ministry right. Everyone who has served in the services knows about the dividing line between military activity and non-military activity.
Fourthly, the Ministry says, "Service men may not be able to prove negligence." They may not, but, on the other hand, they may be able to prove it. That decision should be made by the courts and not by the Minister.
Section 10 should be abolished, first, because that would restore an important human right, and, secondly, because much greater care would be taken in training service men and running their other military activities. I have no doubt that the case will be won sooner or later, because it is just. Sooner or later, section 10 will be abolished and service men wll be given this basic right. I make no plea: when the Ministry of Defence accepts the case, it should be retrospective so that the Martin Kettericks of this world do not suffer because they were injured before the Government saw fit to give them that right. When the Ministry of Defence gives service men the legal right to sue for negligence and makes that right retrospective, it will ensure justice not only for the future but for all those service men who have been deprived of that right.

Mr. Peter Viggers: It is a privilege to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) because I, too, have an interest in the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Only 10 days ago I went to see my constituent, Mr. Des Clingham, who, as a chief petty officer, served in the Falklands with distinction. He came back and was working in Portsmouth harbour when, unfortunately, he fell many feet into the sea from a platform, an accident which left him a paraplegic. As with the cases quoted by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, Mr. Clingham has suffered injuries for which he can claim only a nominal amount through the normal procedures of the armed forces compensation

board. He is deprived of the opportunity of getting what would undoubtedly be hundreds of thousands of pounds were he able to sue through the courts.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the Government should review section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. I do not know whether it is possible to sweep away section 10 although there are real objections to it, but I believe that the current level of provision for those who are damaged and able to receive compensation only under that provision is less than generous. There is no doubt about that. It is not right that service men should be treated in that way. I look forward to the result of the Government's review.
My purpose in participating in this debate is to suggest that the House should not adjourn until it has had the opportunity to discuss another subject which could scarcely be less related to the subject raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. I refer to the issue of tri-organo-tin anti-fouling which is used on boats. I am sure that that issue is of great concern to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Anti-fouling is used by yachtsmen and operators of large boats to prevent growth on the bottom of boats of marine organisms and plant life. By far the most popular of the anti-foulings is organo-tin anti-fouling, which is used by 90 per cent. of all yachtsmen. The industry that manufactures these paints is healthy. Indeed, International Paints, which is the leading manufacturer, has received two Queen's awards—one for export achievement and the other for technical achievement for the development of tri-organo-tin copolymer anti-fouling paints. Blakes Paints Ltd. of Gosport in my constituency also deserves an honourable mention for its production since the last century of high-performance marine paints.
What is the problem? The Government are thinking of banning organo-tin anti-fouling paints. They have issued a draft regulation entitled Control of Pollution (Anti-fouling Paints) Regulations 1985 and called for any representations to be made by 14 May 1985. The Government are apparently contemplating action because it is stated that damage is caused to a particular type of oyster — crassostrea gigas, otherwise known as the Pacific oyster.
The so-called evidence derives mainly from laboratory tests on Pacific oysters. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has found that Pacific oysters kept for long periods in cages coated with organo-tin anti-fouling failed to thrive, and who can blame them? The evidence against organo-tin is circumstantial, and the research has not been profound. Some oyster growers have apparently complained of poor crops, but I am not aware of any tests to discover whether disease, poor weather conditions or even poor husbandry is the cause. The anti-fouling paint is blamed, but I maintain that the case has not been proved.
The scientific evidence is by no means unanimous. The Western Morning News of 3 February 1984 states:
Ministry of Agriculture tests have shown that anti-fouling paint containing toxic TBT (Tributyl Tin) compound can kill or cause deformity in thousands of oysters, mussels and fish larvae, but the Plymouth officials said the problem was not affecting this area.

'We have been looking into mortality of sprats and shellfish in the Tamar to see if TBT could have contributed to the cause of death, but the levels found are not significant,' said Dr. Tony Stebbing, of the city's institute of Marine Biological Research.
I have several worries about the imposition of a ban. First, any alternative to organo-tin anti-fouling paint could


be worse, because yachtsmen would be forced to go back to the old-fashioned copper-based anti-fouling. It is known that some fishermen find that copper-based anti-fouling is not effective for their purposes, and they lace the copper-based anti-fouling with mercury or arsenic. I believe that that could be far worse than organo-tin.
Secondly, the only precedent for a ban on organo-tin is in France. Since the use of organo-tin was banned in France, exports to France from the United Kingdom have increased by 24 per cent., suggesting that something may be wrong with the ban. The ban in the United Kingdom is proposed to be on the sale of organo-tin paints, which means that it is perfectly satisfactory and legal for a yachtsman to sail to the Channel Islands, have his boat painted with organo-tin anti-fouling and sail back to the United Kingdom without having broken the law.
Thirdly, I maintain that oysters in the Solent and Spithead area, of which I claim to have special knowledge, have been breeding like rabbits. There is no evidence that their numbers are falling.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment explains away the Solent area and my point that oysters are breeding well there in a letter of 15 March 1985, in which he says:
While the Solent is a popular boating area, it generally enjoys good tidal flows and good exchange of water with the open sea.
In that way he seeks to dismiss the fact that, although there are more yachts and therefore, presumably, more organo-tin anti-fouling in the Solent area than in most parts of the United Kingdom, nevertheless oysters are thriving as never before.
My fourth point of concern is perhaps the most telling of all. The proposed Government ban is intended to apply only to vessels under 12 metres. When I raised this point with my hon. Friend the Minister and pointed out that larger commercial vessels used more anti-fouling than smaller boats and yachts, he replied:
Large commercial vessels are not moored in large numbers for long periods in shallow waters where interchange with the open sea is poor.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and indeed the House and the Minister, how it is, then, that the Burmah Endeavour, a very large tanker of 457,000 tonnes, has been moored in the port of Southampton for the past two years. Friends in the industry have estimated that it would need 36,000 litres of anti-fouling to keep that tanker anti-fouled—the equivalent of what would be needed by 14,400 yachts. I submit that the ban on yachts is not very logical if the Burmah Endeavour is entitled to remain in Southampton docks, presumably contaminating Southampton Water.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this point with the House. I am completely confident, of course, that my right hon. Friend the Minister will come to the right conclusion when the period of consultation eventually ends on 14 May 1985, but I think it would be helpful for the House to have an opportunity to consider this matter further before then.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I should like to join the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in thanking the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for raising the matter of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. It seems to me quite remarkable that each of the first three speakers in the debate has had a

personal connection with service men who have suffered under that particular section. I am therefore very grateful to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South for raising it.
I should like to speak on a matter that I believe should be debated before we go into recess for Easter. It concerns the practices of the newly privatised British Telecom plc and the way in which they are not only deeply inconveniencing some of its subscribers but threatening the viability of some small, newly established firms which have been formed to take advantage of that privatisation.
When the legislation to privatise BT was passing through the House many of us said that the public would benefit neither from competition nor from better business practices through the conversion of BT from a public to a private monopoly. We said that as the privatised BT would not be accountable to the House, through the Minister, there would be less constraint upon sharp practices and exploitation. I have clear evidence that this is exactly what is happening. I will give the House an example drawn from my own constituency, but I have good reason to believe that this is occurring throughout the country. Indeed, I have a number of letters and evidence to that effect.
I have in my constituency a small firm, C and C Telecoms, run by two former BT engineers, John Clothier and George Crawley. These two—so typical of many others—left BT on privatisation in order to set up their own small business to take advantage of what they believed could be, as the Government had promised, a new, more competitive and liberated market in telecoms. Their aim was quite simple. They formed a small firm with a meagre amount of capital which they invested in a certain amount of equipment, and they wished to install small value items such as telephone sockets and small exchanges. They were encouraged to do this by BT and even went on BT-sponsored courses to learn how to install this particular equipment. They then went out into the market place and started to trade. They offered to install telephone sockets for £58·75 — about £20 below the prevailing BT price of £78·20. As might be imagined, they soon had a good deal of business coming their way.
What they did not know, however, and what BT apparently omitted to tell them during their courses, was that under the Telecommunciations Act 1984 private contractors are not allowed at present — although this may be changed fairly soon—to fit sockets in these circumstances. C and C were not only never advised of this by BT but were, I understand, encouraged by BT to undertake this kind of business.
Whatever the case, however, BT is now refusing to take up this issue directly with the installers. Instead, they are charging the end customer, the member of the public, £25 to inspect the socket installed by the private contractor, so conveniently putting the total cost of the installation by the private contractor just above the price which BT would charge to do the job itself. BT is, presumably, reluctant to challenge the matter legally. Instead, it is taking the easy route of charging an inspection fee to the end customer—on the threat, incidentally, of cutting off his telephone—so ensuring that the problem is solved by the simple route of destroying the private operator's competitiveness.
There are rumours to the effect that BT will shortly, in June this year, be offering DIY sets for the installation of private telephone sockets. I very much hope that the


question of the inspection charge at a massive £25 each will have been resolved by then, and indeed the general legality of the matter as well.
There is a second, more disturbing aspect to this problem, and I will take the case of C and C again. In common with many other similar small firms, C and C, established in the wake of the privatisation of BT, was heavily encouraged by BT to sell three small exchange systems called Rhapsody, Minimaster and Ambassador. They attended BT courses at which they were advised to go out and install as many of these telephone exchange systems—they are called switching systems—as they could.
Messrs. Clothier and Crawley duly made their own personal investments and set up their business on this basis. In the early days they did very well indeed. Then, suddenly and without warning, having been encouraged to base their business on the installation of these small exchanges, they received a letter of 6 March 1985 from their supplier, who is the accredited BT supplier, Eagle Telecoms, saying, quite bluntly and surprisingly:
British Telecom Consumer Products will no longer supply Rhapsody, Minimster and Ambassador from 31st April 1985." 
That is not because those exchange systems have gone out of supply or been withdrawn in any way. That is made perfectly clear by the next statement in this surprising letter: 
BT areas will continue to sell and maintain systems through their own outlets, but they will not commission … 3rd party installations.
In one swipe, BT, acting in just the kind of dictatorial way that we predicted, has pulled the rug out from under the feet of small installers like C and C and many other similar firms throughout the country. The result for Messrs. Clothier and Crawley, with their small resources, is likely to be the end of their business, unless BT can be persuaded to change its mind, and soon.
Practices of this kind, in which BT is blatantly using its monopoly position in the market place to squeeze out third parties and kill off small firms because they are able to do the job more cheaply, must be stopped. The prophecies made by many of us during the passing of the privatisation Bill are coming all too tragically true. Small firms like C and C, which were established with the meagre personal investment of individuals who believed the Government's rhetoric about liberated markets, are now threatened with extinction. I very much hope, for the sake of those small firms, that this matter can be discussed in detail before the House rises.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I should like to raise two issues, one national and the other local. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear that the first issue is the reform of the rating system. I should like to quote from the Official Report of 25 July 1983, when I said:
I have raised this issue often before. I make no apology for raising it again today and I shall go on raising it until something is done to find a fairer system, and if that does not put the fear of God into my right hon. Friend I do not know what will."—[Official Report, 25 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 813.]
Obviously I put no fear at all into my right hon. Friend, because here we are almost two years later and still nothing has been done. So I must say to my right hon. Friend that the battle will continue.
I admit that the Government have tried to do certain things to help hard-pressed ratepayers. We have had the system of rate capping and the proposed abolition of the metropolitan counties. I cannot understand why the Government have pussyfooted around so much and allowed the Opposition parties to have such a field day on the abolition of the metropolitan counties. The Labour party would have kept the Greater London council but abolished the metropolitan counties, and the Liberal party has clearly stated that eventually it would have abolished the metropolitan counties and the GLC. I shudder to think of the amount of ratepayers' money that is now being spent by the GLC and the metropolitan counties in an attempt to prevent abolition.
However, that is all by the by, and we still have to find a fairer system of raising local government finance. No one can dispute that the present system is manifestly unfair, because it takes no account of a person's ability to pay. Every hon. Member will have examples such as this one, of two identical adjacent houses, in one an elderly widow living on her own, and in the house next door three or four people all earning wages. The people in both houses would pay the same rates bill. There is no justice in that system.
I do not pretend for one minute that a solution is easy. We know that there are terrible problems. The Government set up a committee to look carefully at the matter, but nothing came forward that met with approval. The problem is compounded by the fact that water rates are assessed on rateable value rather than on actual consumption. No one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to why we can have rate rebates but not water rate rebates. Water rates are another burden that bears heavily on the poor and the elderly.
I am always being reminded that the Conservative party promised to get rid of the rating system. That needs to be put into perspective. It is true that in October 1974 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she was shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, put that pledge into the election manifesto. But we did not win that election. By the time the 1979 election came along, we believed that rate reform should be given a much lower priority because the burden of taxation under the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 had risen so substantially that something had to be done about trying to reduce the rate of direct taxation.
Basically three options are open to us for changing the rating system. First, there is a sales tax, which seems to work well in the United States. However, the United States is a large country, and in a smaller country such as ours, if there were a substantial variation in shopping patterns, it could be difficult for traders. Secondly, there is a local income tax. We are always being told that the present rating system does not take account of ability to pay, but under a local income tax at least that would be changed. The argument has always been that the present system is easy to administer and collect and that a local income tax would be expensive to administer and collect. I should have thought that that argument had died because of the massive advances in technology and computers. Perhaps that matter can be looked at again.
The third option is a poll tax. That would spread the burden evenly on everyone on the electoral register. It would be easy and inexpensive to collect. The Green Paper forecast that a 30 per cent. poll tax would yield £1,200


million annual revenue. I wonder whether we could have a mixture of a poll tax and a much reduced domestic rate. Perhaps that is the answer to the ratepayers' problem.
If anyone bothers to look at the back of his rate demand, he will find that education is far and away the biggest spender and that teachers' salaries take the highest percentage of the education budget. I am convinced that teachers do not want to become civil servants and that they wish to continue to be employed by a local education authority. Therefore, local authorities must have some financial responsibility. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider the idea of a scheme whereby teachers' basic salaries are paid by central Government and any additional payments are shared between the Government and the local education authorities. That would lift an enormous burden from ratepayers' shoulders, but it must not be a signal to spendthrift councils that they can go ahead with all sorts of extravagant schemes, because in that case the ratepayers would be back to square one.
The second issue affects my constituency. It is the vexed question of the South Trafford district hospital. In 1976–77 it was placed in the regional capital programme, and the scheme was due to start in 1980–81. The first phase was for elderly, severely mentally infirm people. In 1977–78 there was a further review and the decision was announced that we would also have acute facilities, but the start was put back to 1982–83. There was a belief in my constituency that the Department of Health and Social Security was holding things up, so on 30 June 1980 I raised an Adjournment debate on the issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), then the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, replied and said:
Let me say at once that I fully accept in principle the need to site these services locally and to provide, so far as is possible, acute geriatric and mental illness services in the same location as other acute specialties. I recognise that the RHA's plans to include 100 geriatric and ESMI beds, together with 80 day places in all, in phase 1 of the development would represent a substantial step towards remedying the gaps in provision. I am also aware that its proposal for 150 mental illness beds and 170 day places in phase 2 would enable the needs of the whole Trafford area for mental illness facilities to be met … I should like to confirm that the ultimate size of the new hospital as envisaged by the RHA does not conflict at all with our recent thinking on hospital size. At 489 beds, it is well within the range that we regard as viable."—[Official Report, 30 June 1980; Vol. 987, c. 1271.]
I took a fair measure of hope from that debate, but we then had a Greater Manchester hospital review between the regional health authority and the DHSS. As a result of that review it was confirmed in October 1981 that the scheme would go ahead, so we had a firm pledge. From then on apparently there was a great deal of correspondence between the regional health authority and the DHSS. In 1983 the regional health authority reviewed its strategy for what it called its regional strategic plan. At the beginning of 1984 work started on an option appraisal, and that took up most of 1984.
In November 1984 we had the recommendation for what was called the Wythenshawe option. Trafford health authority objected, and as a result the regional health authority ordered another appraisal. In February 1985 we were told that the Wythenshawe option was marginally favoured. That has caused a great deal of anger in my constituency, because people feel that the solemn promise that was given has been broken.
Last Wednesday, 20 March, the community health council in my area held a public meeting. It was well attended, and the audience were very angry. People were furious that nobody from the regional health authority was there to explain the position. I often find that if people are presented with the facts, at least they have some understanding of the situation. If the regional health authority had sent someone to put its point of view, that would have been helpful. At the meeting there was a unanimous vote for going ahead with the South Trafford district general hospital. I hope that my constituents' views will be heeded by the DHSS.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note the points that I have made, and that before the House rises I shall be given some assurances on both issues.

Mr. James Molyneaux: We in Northern Ireland had hoped that this Easter would be brighter and happier for our Province than any Easter since 1969. In the intervening years, a cloud of uncertainty had cast its shadow over all our activities, but that cloud had at long last been dispelled in the immediate aftermath of last November's anglo-Irish summit, when the Prime Minister with characteristic clarity removed all doubt about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. She made it crystal clear that the principle of self-determination made it necessary to reject the three options set out in the New Ireland Forum report. The Opposition shared the stated view of the Government that there could be no change in Ulster's constitutional position without the free and willing consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That ruled out partial change too.
The Prime Minister's forthright statement after the Chequers summit in November made a significant impact on the entire Northern Ireland community. All over the Province there was evidence of a dramatic change in attitudes. Protestants, Roman Catholics, Unionists and Nationalists were all conscious that three years of drifting were over. They said to themselves, and, what is more, to each other, "Now we know where we stand." They recognised the futility of squabbling about what was not going to happen, and began to wonder how they could co-operate in making Ulster a better place for everyone.
Tragically, that has all now been put at risk by a concerted offensive by Republican politicians and certain churchmen. The culmination was the speech last Friday in London by Dr. FitzGerald. Coming from a lunch in Dublin with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he was able to imply that he spoke for them all when he claimed that they were all working on novel and far-reaching proposals for joint authority over Northern Ireland. That speech inspired various press articles designed to add to the confusion and dismay in Northern Ireland.
I recognise that the House is not responsible for any of those activities, but the House is entitled to know the view of those who are accountable to it—in this case, the Northern Ireland Ministers. Everything that they have said over the past week has been so ambiguous that it might have been better left unsaid. For example, on his arrival in Washington yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:


weekend speculation is overblown … predictions are well ahead of the game".

That is good Foreign Office stuff, but what does it do to remove the natural anxiety in the minds of those who have been let down and betrayed over 15 long years?
The instability thus created may not strike some right hon. and hon. Members as being very important, but the crying shame is that all that has been achieved in the past five months will be set at naught. The modest success in persuading citizens of Northern Ireland of all aspirations that their future is secure and their path known will be extinguished.
Disaster will be averted only if the Government reiterate the Prime Minister's clear message of 19 November in terms that cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. I understand that such a course will not commend itself to those who cherish diplomatic double-talk. However, even they have no choice in the matter, because their opposite numbers in Dublin have put them on the spot—not for the first time. They have created a situation in which words such as "overblown", "exaggeration", "speculation" and "premature" no longer convince or reassure. Considerations of diplomatic niceties have simply enabled Dublin to mount a flanking attack where the frontal attack failed last year. The Government must make it clear that a flanking attack will be no more successful, and the tactic of drift and double-speak must be abandoned now if all that the Prime Minister has achieved is not to be ruthlessly torn away.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like to raise two issues and to suggest that they should both be looked at before we agree to the Adjournment. Although it is not always so, one of the issues falls directly within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
First, however, I should like to comment on the unfair attack on British Telecom by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). My constituents are satisfied with British Telecom. There has been a great improvement in attitude since privatisation.
The first matter to which I wish to refer is the House of Commons car park. There has been a substantial deterioration over the past few years. It is becoming increasingly difficult to park cars there. Fewer and fewer cars appear to display the discs issued. Will my right hon. Friend authorise an investigation to find out whether in some cases more than one car is being parked by an hon. Member, whether staff are parking more than one car there and whether all the vehicles are in fact authorised? Could he also instruct the car park staff to notify Mr. Speaker if vehicles are parked in spaces not marked out for cars? When people selfishly park their cars outside the marked spaces, driving in the car park becomes difficult and dangerous.
I have written to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, without so far receiving a very helpful answer. However, the Chairman said that the matter was under consideration. That was some time ago, but, knowing the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he is considering the matter. It may well be that he does not often use the car park. It is only when one

tries to park a car there that one realises what the problems are. For instance, on a Thursday, it is becoming increasingly difficult to park a car even at noon.
The second issue concerns the Department of the Environment, where a most disturbing case has come to my attention. I declare an interest as a life member of the Bluebell railway—the steam railway between Horsted Keynes and Sheffield Park. The railway is run entirely by volunteers who raise all the funds. Three or four years ago they decided that they would like to purchase and reopen an additional section of line so that the Bluebell railway could again be linked to the main line. Through trains could then be run, or people could alight from a British Rail train and board a Bluebell railway train on another platform at the same station.
That requires planning permission and a light railway order. I am not asking for a favourable decision—that would not be right—just for a decision. If I tell the House that the public inquiry was held between 21 June and 6 July 1983, hon. Members will realise why I am beginning to get somewhat anxious. The inspector considered the planning appeal in conjunction with an application for a light railway order and his report was received on 2 November 1983. Some civil servants must have been shuffling those documents around, and they should be disciplined. I put it no lower than that.
When I had the great privilege to be a Minister in the Department of the Environment from 1979 to 1981, I had to deal, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, with opposed compulsory purchase orders. He laid down a firm rule for me — Ministers dealing with planning applications, appeals or compulsory purchase orders were therefore dealing with the right of citizens, so they should be given priority. Any document containing an appeal which came across my desk and into my red box was dealt with within 48 hours. I raised immediate queries if I found that documents had sat on a civil servant's desk for a long time before reaching me.
This intolerable delay has cost the Bluebell railway money which volunteers have raised, and on which they must pay interest to banks, to extend the line. It is not costing the civil servants anything while they shuffle bits of paper around.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agrees that it is intolerable that we should have to wait so long. This is not a matter such as Stansted, which is of major international importance. It is an application to reopen a small length of line, so no new principle is involved. He should tell our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the delay must not continue and that the decision—I am not asking what it is to be—should be given before the House rises for the recess.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Before we rise for the Easter recess, there is an urgent need to debate the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission report on family law called "Custody of Children — Jurisdiction and Enforcement within the United Kingdom", Cmnd. 9419.
The background to the report is the headline cases that we occasionally read in newspapers of heart-rending stories of children being taken abroad in defiance of a custody order. Usually, one parent of a broken marriage cannot accept that the other has been given custody. They


are usually described as tug-of-love cases, but all too often the children are innocent victims of parental disagreement, in which love often seems to be the least obvious emotion. That is not to deny that there is often genuine love for the children or that the children are torn between parents. Nevertheless, the trauma undergone by the children can leave its mark for a lifetime.
The most serious cases are those in which the children are abducted. Sometimes the parent with the custody order abducts the child back to where legal custody applies. Great attention is rightly paid to cases with an international dimension. Not so well publicised or so widely understood are the comparable circumstances within the United Kingdom. A custody order made in a Scottish court is neither recognised nor enforceable in English courts. Similarly, a custody order made in an English court is neither recognised nor enforceable in Scottish courts.
In international terms, there is an anomaly peculiar to Scotland. If a child is removed to a foreign country in contravention of an English court's custody order, no matter how willing the child might be to accompany the parent, the custody order will be acted on by the Home Office to prevent the child's removal. Immigration officers are advised and a stop order ensures that the child remains in the United Kingdom. However, the Home Office will not act on a court order made in Scotland. That is greeted with incredulity by constituents who seek the intervention of their Member of Parliament. They cannot understand why there should be a difference, and I do not blame them for being bemused.
The anomalies arise because the Scottish and English legal systems have different roots and have evolved separately. The Scots, of whom I am one, are justly proud of their legal system and stoutly resist what we call Anglicising encroachment. The English, in their turn, believe that their system is superior. It is a case of never the twain shall meet. In other aspects of family law, however, they co-exist, notwithstanding different traditions and even separate legislation. If a couple are divorced in Scotland, England or Northern Ireland, that is recognised throughout the United Kingdom. A main-tenance award made in any part of the United Kingdom is recognised and may be enforced in any part of the United Kingdom, wherever the awarding court might be.
Two of the three principal affects of family law are mutually recognisable and enforceable; only custody orders are still subject to non-recognition. The application of logic compels one to the conclusion that rectification is urgently required. Help would appear to be at hand. The joint Law Commission that I have mentioned, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Scarman, finally reported to Parliament on 15 January 1985. The committee was established in 1972, so it has taken 13 years to produce a report. The report comes to the sensible and obvious conclusion that there should be mutual recognition of custody orders and that the anomalies should be eliminated. In the interests of time I shall not quote the report, but paragraph 1.14 recommends a simple procedure for recognition and enforcement and paragraph 6.20 recommends that the stop order system should be extended to include Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Command 9419 has the great advantage of a draft Bill giving effect to its recommendations being attached as annex A. However, we must ask whether help really is at hand and whether, at long last, there will be some action. Alas, I am not convinced that the Government are seized

of the urgency of the situation or that the respective Law Officers display enthusiasm for legislation. After all, the report is not the first on this matter. In 1958, a working party under the chairmanship of the then Lord Justice Hodson was asked to consider what alterations to the law were required to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction. That report, Cmnd. 842 entitled "Report of the Committee on Conflicts of Jurisdiction Affecting Children", recommended, at paragraph 56, reciprocal enforcement and the extension of the stop order system to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Nothing was done to translate that 1959 report into legislation because, it appears, the Law Officers did not agree. I am worried that Lord Seaman's report may suffer the same fate.
Experience does not lead me to believe that we shall soon have a change in the law. In another place, the Child Abduction and Custody Bill has had a Second Reading and may have started its Committee stage. If it has not, it soon will. It is a welcome measure because it will solve the issues relating to the international scene. The Bill will enact into our domestic law the Hague convention of 1980, which was signed by the Government. Five years later, we are only bringing that convention into legislation. We cannot wait any longer to remedy the serious defect in our domestic law.
I have asked the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate what plans there are to implement the recommendations in Cmnd. 9419. The Lord Advocate, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, with the concurrence of Lord Hailsham, advised me that, although the issues were non-controversial, the Government would need time to study the report, and that no legislation would be commenced this Session, but it is hoped that something might be done next Session. That sounds ominous to me, especially as every query that I have raised during the past 15 years when I have been a Member of the House and, in particular, since 1972 has been answered with, "Wait until we get the report of the Scarman inquiry."
I concede that Cmnd. 9419 does not resolve every anomally to everyone's complete satisfaction. There are differences of opinion about wardship cases, which affect only England, and the draft Bill does not cover the Isle of Man. Nevertheless, the mechanism of recognition and thereby of enforcement is simply that of registration. A custody order made in Scotland may be registered with the High Court in England, and a custody order made in England may be registered with the Court of Session in Scotland.
While the report says "may be registered", we should have automatic registration instead of registration by application. The machinery for automatic registration must exist, as divorces are automatically registered. Therefore, there is a channel of communication that can be used. There is sufficient agreement over a wide-ranging area of the law to warrant swift legislation. The grounds for further delay are thin. The Committee stage could resolve the few outstanding issues, which would certainly concentrate the minds of Ministers and those in the legal profession.
Why is the matter so urgent? After all, it is 27 years since the first report was established, and the problem was recognised even earlier. There is an opportunity to introduce legislation this Session. Earlier, I mentioned the Child Abduction and Custody Bill. The long title could be amended to include the domestic position, and the draft Bill, annex A to Cmnd. 9419, could be grafted on.
The principles are non-controversial. They are certainly non-party political and would be widely welcomed. The three major aspects of family law — divorce, main-tenance and custody—would then be properly catered for and, with the good will of the Government, achieved this Session. That is why we urgently need a debate. We may then have the verdict of the House on the matter both as a guide to the Government and to urge and spur them into action. Many parents and children would benefit, and the matter is long overdue.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: At the outset I wish to echo the anxiety expressed by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) about the present speculation relating to Northern Ireland. It would be of considerable help, not only to the House but to the people of Ulster, if the Leader of the House could make it clear that there has been no change in the position since the Prime Minister's statement at the press conference following the November summit.
Before the House rises for the Easter recess, and at a time when rate demands come popping through the letter box, it would be appropriate to examine the value for money or otherwise provided by local authorities. At the same time, as on previous occasions, I fully concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) in his call for the abolition of domestic rates. Instead I advocate introducing a poll tax at the earliest opportunity to overcome the unfairness of the present system.
I have long supported the Government's concept of the privatisation of council operations where appropriate, and have advocated a right to compete to ensure that a process of competitive tendering is fairly and openly entered into. It is essential always to bear in mind that a local council is only the custodian of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, and therefore has a duty to spend it efficiently, effectively and economically. I therefore welcome the recent announcement of the consultation document, "Competition in the Provision of Local Authority Services", but I respectfully suggest that positive action should follow hard on its heels. Hon. Members who, like me, have in their constituencies councils which dogmatically refuse even to consider such privatisation know how essential that is.
I must, however, add a note of concern, in that the document excludes parish councils and parish meetings from its scope. Bearing in mind that the functions and political motivation of some large parish councils can be considerable, I feel that they should not be treated differently. I might add a plea that parish councils should be better understood — they are often the least appreciated aspect of local government—which is to be regretted. Parish councils, because of their nature, are often far more closely in touch with local opinion than larger authorities. That element of the administrative process should never be overlooked.
One particular advantage that the lowest tier of local government usually provides is the annual meeting, at which parishioners have a right to plead their case and to air their views on topics of local importance. Through such an opportunity, and the inevitable lack of remoteness

between a parish councillor and the electors, the feeling of the village or community can often be reasonably well gauged.
When privatisation is talked about, I detect a tendency to dwell perhaps too much on refuse collection and street cleaning, and not enough on the other services that private enterprise can do as well and, in most cases, probably considerably better than direct employment. Undoubtedly, it is of key importance to extend the number of councils using contractors for such tasks, but the principle of good housekeeping goes wider than that.
I am aware of the savings in cost and manpower, and the improvement in service, already exhibited by privatisation as a consequence of competitive tendering. In Southend, which is an obvious example, £600,000 was saved on refuse collection and street cleaning in the first year alone. Such advantages should not be restricted to the few, but should be available to the many.
Before the House rises for the Easter recess, we should remind ourselves that value for money has rightly been a central theme of the Government. It must equally be one for all levels of local government.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the House rises for the Easter recess, I wish to raise certain matters relating to the Severn bridge which need to be clarified.
On 21 September 1983 the Secretary of State for Transport announced proposals to increase the toll on the bridge by 150 per cent. The decision was apparently based on the principle of trying to recoup £20 million which had been earmarked for repair and maintenance work. It is worth pointing out that £20 million is more than the construction costs of the bridge in the first place. The fact that a relatively new bridge should need such extensive repair work so early in its life shows that someone got it wrong. There must have been design faults in the original construction work, and certainly in the estimating of traffic flows on the bridge. The question that must be posed now is, why should the motorist today have to pay for those errors? Surely Parliament did not contemplate such a penalty on law-abiding motorists.
The debt under the Consolidated Fund is purely notional, although it should be said that the interest on the original sum is increasing rapidly. Under the provisions of the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, a proposal such as the one made by the Secretary of State to increase tolls must be advertised in the London Gazette and in the local press. When that was done, Gwent county council and several other important local bodies objected to the proposal. Therefore, to some extent, the Secretary of State was pressurised into announcing a public inquiry. Meanwhile, on 28 October 1983, I secured an Adjournment debate in the House, during which I revealed the contents of a hitherto secret report on the bridge prepared by Mott, Hay and Anderson, an internationally renowed firm of consultant engineers. The report pinpointed some rather disturbing aspects of the state of the bridge and subsequently there was a public outcry, certainly in Wales. That was understandable, because the bridge had become the principal artery for people travelling in and out of the Principality. Two major national conferences were held, at which unananimous decisions were taken to call for the repair work to be carried out as expeditiously as possible. In addition, there was a call for a second crossing of the Severn.
Following those events, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that £33 million would be spent on the urgently needed repairs to the bridge. The House will recall that the original figure was £20 million. It was on that figure that the original proposal to increase tolls by 150 per cent. was based. There is obviously a discrepancy, and one can imagine only that the Secretary of State probably had in mind a further increase in tolls at a subsequent date. But at the same time the Secretary of State agreed to consider the possibility of a second crossing of the Severn.
The public inquiry into the proposed increase in tolls commenced in Bristol on 17 July 1984. It heard much evidence from many bodies and individuals, all of which was hostile to the Secretary of State's proposal. The commissioner who conducted the inquiry presented his report to the Secretary of State early in November 1984. Since then, I have put down several questions calling for the publication of the report. Each time I have been told that the matter is still to be considered and that the report will be published some time in the future. We still await the report. Meanwhile, there have been unofficial reports that the commissioner did not entirely accept the Secretary of State's proposals.
My first major question is, may we be told positively when the report will be published? The public have a right to know what it contains, because the Severn bridge is of vital importance to the economy and the interests of Wales. Also, has there been a change in Government policy on toll charges. For instance, the new Conway tunnel in north Wales will be toll-free. I understand that last week there was an announcement that a new estuarial crossing in Scotland, north of Inverness at Dornoch, will also be toll-free. We need some clarity from the Government, not to mention some consistency in their decisions on toll charges.
On 6 February 1984, the Secretary of State for Transport announced a feasibility study into a proposal for a second crossing of the Severn. On 13 December last year, I put down a question to him asking
What progress has been made in the study of the proposed second crossing of the Severn; and if he will publish an interim report to inform interested parties of developments so far.
I received a reply from the Minister of State, Department of Transport, who said:
The study into how a second crossing of the River Severn might be provided commenced in August this year. During the first three months of the study the consultants have had preliminary discussions with local authorities and many statutory and representative bodies. They have also made an initial examination of traffic, engineering, environmental, planning and economic aspects of a second crossing. Many possibilities have been investigated for the location and type of a river crossing, and the link roads to the M4/M5 motorways.
A report on the work done in the first three months will be made available in the near future." — [Official Report, 13 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 578.]
That was in December and we are still waiting. Today I must ask why we are waiting. There seems to be no reason why the public should not be given that information.
From the outset, it has seemed that the Secretary of State for Transport has insufficient understanding of the importance of the Severn bridge to the economy and interests of Wales. There is certainly considerable interest in the matter in Wales and, indeed, outside in the various companies that move in and out of Wales.
In conclusion, I trust that the Leader of the House will impress upon the Secretary for Transport the importance of publishing both reports without further delay.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When our hours have been long and our recesses short, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may need some convincing, but I hope that what I say convinces him that there is a case for shortening our recess so that consideration can be given to the rather urgent issue of Parliament's control of expenditure, particularly in view of some recent developments initiated by the Government.
My right hon. Friend may be aware that some hon. Members raised on a point of order their serious concern about what appeared to be a new constitutional development whereby the Government, for the first time in my memory, created new policies by putting figures in Supplementary Estimates. My right hon. Friend may recall that on 14 March we had a debate on Supplementary Estimates, which included an additional payment of £364 milllion which the Government had decided to pay to the Common Market by providing an overdraft facility. I have endeavoured by every possible means to discover the justification for that payment. Where was the Bill, the order, the decision of the House? There has been none.
It has always been a principle in the House of Commons that Estimates should reflect agreed policies, not that Estimates should create policies. For example, we might decide that it would be fair, because of the burden that he carries, that the salary of the Leader of the House should be doubled. Presumably we should put down a motion, and if that motion were approved an appropriate figure would be put in the Estimates. If we agreed that, because of the enormous burdens borne by the Deputy Speakers, their pensions should be doubled, we would pass a motion and if that were accepted, a figure would appear in the Estimates.
In this case, it appeared to me and some of my colleagues that the Government were creating a new policy of offering overdraft facilities to the Common Market simply by placing figures in the Supplementary Estimates. What is even more disturbing is that, although a number of us put down an amendment to take this figure out of the Estimates, Mr. Speaker had to explain, on 14 March, that under Standing Order No. 19 it was not possible to have a separate vote, far less a debate, on the issue.
This is a desperately important constitutional point. In the light of Mr. Speaker's ruling, the Public Accounts Committee is to consider the principle of the issue on 3 April. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will at least accept that there is a major issue which requires debate and consideration, whether in the Chamber or in the Public Accounts Committee.
On the same subject, I was surprised to hear during the Budget debate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had decided to alter the VAT legislation to ensure that credit card companies were unable to claim back some of the money that was paid by them. This was a major and significant measure, which amounts to about £15 million a year in taxation. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware, some £4 million of that has to be carried by Southend, by the Access credit card company, which has its office there.
Understandably, Access has been in touch with me, and no doubt with other Members, asking what the score on


this is, when it had been decided by Parliament, and when it had been debated. I had to explain that it was not in the motions that we approved under the Budget. How is this major decision to be approved? It has to be decided in terms of a statutory instrument, No. 432, called the Value Added Tax (Finance) Order 1985.
My right hon. Friend will be aware, because I have written to him about this, that this is what is called a negative resolution procedure order, which means that it can be debated only if the Government decide to give it time for consideration. If they do not, at no stage of our deliberations will Members of Parliament, collectively or even in a Committee, have decided whether it is right to charge an extra £15 million on the credit card companies. Is this not depriving Members of Parliament even of their statutory right to be rubber stamps? We are not even being asked to approve or disapprove of this new tax.
What worries me more about this is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury kindly sent me a note to explain that he had to do this because the Common Market had threatened my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that if we did not do something about this we would be taken to the European Court. We know the way that these things work out these days, but what upsets me as the Member of Parliament representing the headquarters of Access is that, despite this threat by the Common Market, the German credit card companies do not operate the law in this way. If the order is approved, inevitably British credit card companies will be at a competitive disadvantage compared with German companies.
I said "if' this is approved, but this major decision to take £15 million out of the credit card companies, which will put them at a competitive disadvantage with Germany, can be debated or discussed only if the Government and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree that there should be such a debate and such consideration. If they do not, it will simply mean that a Minister or, to be plain, two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury will have signed this document to get an extra £15 million out of the credit card companies.
The House and my right hon. Friend must agree that this announcement makes nonsense of parliamentary control of expenditure. It means that taxes are being charged without anyone considering, debating or reviewing them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not say that we have had a debate on the Budget. Of course we have, but he must be aware that this issue was not one of the motions being discussed, and there was no opportunity last night to vote on it. I hope that before the House moves into its recess my right hon. Friend will be able to give me an assurance that if, as will happen, an order is tabled to annul this regulation, he will ensure that there will be a debate in the House, or at least in a Standing Committee, to consider this taxation.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that some years ago there was a major dispute with King Charles I, about Parliament's control of supply, which ended with the King's head being chopped off. This is a major constitutional issue, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear this in mind.
The third point about Parliament's control of expenditure arises from something that was revealed in Hansard this morning by my hon. Friend the Minister of

State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a written answer. This showed Parliament's complete lack of control on the vast amount being spent on the dumping of food abroad, particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe. The latest figures were provided, and sadly they show that the Common Market is spending £20 million every day on the storage and dumping of food abroad, with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe being the main beneficiaries. That is a huge amount of money when we consider how our local authorities and hospital boards are having to cut back on their expenditure. For example, local authorities are being forced to stop the provision of improvement grants because the money has run out. At the same time, an open cheque is being given for the provision of subsidies for the export of cheap food to the Soviet Union.
The latest figures sadly show that since the Government came into power the export of cheap food to Russia has increased by about 1,000 per cent. It also shows that the prices at which we are exporting food to the Soviet Union are lower than they have ever been in the history of Britain or the EEC. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has just arrived. He takes an interest in the public purse and will be horrified to learn the figures published in Hansard this morning.
The figures reveal that, whereas in Britain we have to pay over £3 a pound for our beef, we are selling top quality beef to the Soviet Union at 35p a pound. It reveals that, whereas we are paying about 28p a pound for sugar, we are selling vast quantities to Russia at 7p a pound. Whereas we are paying about £1·40 a pound for butter, the Russians get it at 47p. Whereas flour is sold in this country at about 30p a pound, the Russians get it at about 5p a pound. Even more unbelievable is the figure for wine. I do not drink wine, but if I were to buy a litre bottle it would cost me almost £3. We sell it to the Russians at 7p a litre.
I am sure that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not mind paying a great deal of money in taxes to ensure that we can protect ourselves against the Russians by having all these missiles, bombs, planes and goodness knows what. What is the point of paying extra taxes in order to subsidise the Soviet war machine? That is what we are doing by means of this subsidy. Sadly, Russian housewives do not get their beef at 35p per pound, butter at 47p per pound, or wine at 7p per litre. The Soviet Union imposes a substantial extra cost on all these prices and keeps the difference to cover its public expenditure.
As the Leader of the House is well aware, we have no control whatsoever over such spending. If the European Community fixes the amount that it wants to spend upon providing the Russians with cheap food and goes over that limit, there is nothing that we can do about it, apart from writing out a cheque for the additional amount. We have had to write out several such cheques this year because the European Community has spent over the limit.
The Leader of the House is, I know, concerned about the rights of Back Benchers. How can it be right that we should be spending £7 billion a year on dumping food, with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as major beneficiaries? Before we go into recess I hope that we shall examine this remarkable development in the power of the Government over the Supplementary Estimates and the taxation of my constituents without discussion or vote, and the scandalous increase under a Conservative Government in the subsidies to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the provision of cheap food which my hard-pressed constituents would be very glad to buy.
If the residents of Southend were able to go to the shops tomorrow and buy beef at 35p per pound, sugar at 7p per pound, butter at 47p per pound, flour at 5p per pound, wine at 7p per litre, pork at 38p per pound and chicken at 29p per pound, it would provide a bigger fillip to the economy of this country than will be achieved by the meagre reductions in taxation that this Budget has introduced. The Chancellor referred to the problems of the poor and their need for more help. If we were to provide cheap food not for the Russians but for the British people our economy would be given a massive boost. Real protection would also be given to the poor who need help at this time.

Mr. David Winnick: Before we agree to the motion, there are two matters which ought to be mentioned. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will forgive me if I do not pursue the points that he raised. First, I wish to refer to the disturbances and killings during the past week in South Africa. Secondly, I shall refer to a domestic matter.
The events in South Africa during the past week clearly demonstrate that a few piecemeal reforms of the apartheid regime cannot resolve any of the deep problems that exist in that country. There are undoubtedly a number of tyrannies—far too many, in fact. Labour Members are hardly in the habit of finding excuses for Governments who clamp down on civil liberties and whose authority is usually based upon military power rather than upon consent.
South Africa, however, remains different in one respect from other dictatorships and tyrannies. Its political system is based upon a very brutal way of running the country. It discriminates against the majority population for one reason only—that of colour. Even those who are keen to find excuses for what goes on in South Africa usually preface their remarks by saying that they are against apartheid. Apartheid is so discredited and so disgraced that even those who want to find excuses for the South African regime usually have to preface their remarks with something along those lines.
Britain has very large investments in South Africa. There remain close ties between the authorities of both countries. My hon. Friends and I maintain that we cannot remain neutral between the Government of South Africa and those in South Africa who wish apartheid to be defeated. Whatever cosmetic changes have occurred since the Sharpeville events of 1960, South Africa remains governed without the participation, and certainly without the consent, of a large majority of the people of South Africa.
We have also raised, in particular at Question Time, with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary the continued imprisonment of the leaders of African opinion. They have been in prison for over 20 years. Their real crime is that they want South Africa to be free and independent, a country in which people can live without being discriminated against. I refer to Nelson Mandela who has been in prison for over 20 years, Walter Sisulu, Govan M'Beki and many other members of the African National Congress. These are the people who really speak for South Africa.
That is why the Opposition were opposed last year to the visit to this country by the Prime Minister of South Africa. We objected to the way in which he was wined and

dined in this country. We objected to the Prime Minister playing host to him at Chequers. Of course the Prime Minister went through the ritual of saying that she was against apartheid. However, the Opposition say that, if the true representatives of South Africa are to visit this country, we must wait until Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and his colleagues are released. They will be most welcome visitors to this country.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is going down the predictable path of his usual speech. However, things have changed during the last three weeks for Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that a full pardon was offered to Nelson Mandela—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a contribution, he may catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in a few moments, but perhaps at this stage he will listen to the argument on the other side, even though he does not like it.
The State President made Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners the offer of a full pardon, provided that after their release they did not engage in revolutionary tactics. Will not the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) agree that the 16 or 17 prisoners who accepted that offer are now in a far better position to influence the Government of South Africa and, indeed, to influence the West than is Nelson Mandela, who has refused this offer of a pardon because he is bent upon the path of revolutionary change?

Mr. Winnick: I thought the hon. Gentleman knew that Nelson Mandela has made his position perfectly clear. The message that he gave his daughter to read made it perfectly clear once again that he would accept no conditions. Why should he accept conditions? It is his country. He is the leader of African opinion and he has been put in prison for that reason and that reason alone. He will never give up the struggle for a free and independent South Africa, a country that is free from the tyranny of apartheid. I say to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), and to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who I see has just come into the Chamber, that the Opposition find the attitude of certain Conservative Members very disturbing. I do not wish to pursue the matter; I mentioned it yesterday.
However, certain Conservative Members always find it possible to make excuses for what has happened in South Africa. The Opposition do not make a habit of finding excuses for dictatorships, wherever they may be. However, the hon. Members for Luton, North, and for Macclesfield are well-known in the House as fellow travellers of the apartheid regime. In view of what I have said, I must give way, I suppose, to the hon. Member for Macclesfield.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I shall not pursue the matter of Nelson Mandela, although my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is quite right. For the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to dismiss the offer of release that has been made by the State President of the Republic of South Africa is to fly in the face of the reforms that are taking place in that country. The hon. Gentleman said that Nelson Mandela and one or


two other people that he mentioned are the true leaders of South Africa, but would he not concede that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, the leader of the Zulu nation and of the Inkatha movement, which has a known membership of over 1 million people, has not found it necessary to indulge in the revolutionary activities of Nelson Mandela and that he is travelling around the world in support of the black people of South Africa? Survey after survey has shown that over 70 per cent. of the black people in South Africa do not support the disinvestment that the hon. Gentleman clearly supports, as is evident from his remarks this afternoon.

Mr. Winnick: All the hon. Gentleman's remarks bear out what I said a moment ago—that he and some of his hon. Friends are indeed fellow travellers of the apartheid regime.
The test is clear. When elections take place in South Africa in a democratic manner and without discrimination, and when South Africa is liberated from the tyranny of apartheid, we shall see who are the true leaders of South Africa. The majority of people in South Africa cannot vote in national elections at present for one reason only—the colour of their skin. We shall raise the issue time and time again. We send our message of solidarity to those in South Africa who are battling against a notorious regime.
The second issue that I wish to discuss might be less controversial.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Soviet Union?

Mr. Winnick: I do not find excuses for dictatorships, including that in Russia—unlike the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who can always we know be relied on to put the arguments for the apartheid regime. I think that that is disgraceful.
My second issue is domestic—the growing housing crisis. Many local authorities are increasingly unable to fulfil their statutory housing responsibilities. In London alone, bed and breakfast hotels receive over £1 million a month for housing homeless people. It is no wonder that a crisis exists when one considers the drastic fall in council housing starts. Because of Government financial restrictions, since 1979 Walsall has not entered into any contracts for new council dwellings. That means, of course, an ever-increasing number of people on the waiting list who cannot be rehoused.
Last year, fewer than 40,000 public housing starts were recorded in Britain. Due to further cuts in the housing investment programme allocation for 1985–86, even fewer starts will take place this year. The number will probably be down to 30,000. The Government restriction on the capital receipts that can be used will make it even more difficult for local authorities to build and modernise dwellings.
Housing Ministers claim that there was a sharp drop in housing starts when the Labour Government were in office. In 1978, the last full year of the Labour Government, there were over 107,000 starts in the public sector. In 1979, there were at least 81,000 starts.
People who require local authority accommodation but who do not have the means to obtain a mortgage should be rehoused by their local authority. Housing authorities should be able to carry out their statutory housing responsibilities, but how can they when they do not have

the money? How can they when the housing waiting list grows longer and longer and boroughs such as Walsall are no longer building houses at all?
A large amount of pre-war stock needs to be modernised. The longer that is left, the more expensive and extensive it will be. Tenants are living in unfit accommodation because local authorities do not have the means to do the necessary work. How many people among the mass of unemployed are trained construction workers who could be released from unemployment and allowed to earn their living by doing essential community work in building and modernising dwellings? What a policy of madness it is to cause such tremendous difficulties for our constituents, so many of whom desperately need local authority housing.
I ask the Leader of the House to pass on to the Secretary of State our concern about the housing plight caused by local authorities not being able to carry out their statutory functions.

Mr. David Amess: I should like the House to consider animal welfare. Although I am most definitely an animal lover, like the majority of the British public, I condemn some of the disgraceful methods used by some animal welfare groups to further their aims.
In my time I have kept most animals, from peacocks and goats to baby alligators. As a child, my long-suffering family did not know what I would bring home next in the way of livestock.
Next Tuesday I shall be bringing a horse to the House of Commons. Hon. Members need not concern themselves unduly, because I shall not attempt to bring it into the Chamber. Instead, a peaceful lobby will take place in Abingdon gardens between 2.30 pm and 3 pm. It is being organised by the Animal Welfare Group of Essex, inspired by the Basildon branch and led by a Mr. Clements. The purpose of the lobby is to draw to the attention of the House a shameful practice which negates the effects of an incomplete set of laws. I refer to the growing practice of leaving horses on other people's lands while arrangements are made to move the horses on to slaughter houses, to a port for export or to other markets.
The practice came to my attention because of problems in my constituency, but I understand that it is widespread throughout the United Kingdom, particularly on county and borough boundaries. Once ownership of the land in question is established—which is not always easy—horse owners have a habit of moving their horses to adjacent land so that the whole process must begin again.
In Basildon, a large tract of land is divided between the district council, the development corporation and a large private waste disposal firm. There are few clear boundaries. The horses are moved about the land to avoid legal proceedings. County and borough boundaries also provide perfect places for such manoeuvres, because the animals can be moved over the boundary to land owned by a different authority.
The Animals Act 1971 established that owners are liable for damage caused by the livestock straying on to people's land. The nub of the problem is that no damage is caused. The poor, half-starved animals do little more than forage where they can for the small amount of grass available. Were it not for the kindness of my constituents, many more horses would have died. Last winter two horses had to be put down by the RSPCA.
The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 makes it an offence to abandon any animal in circumstance liable to cause it unnecessary suffering, but these animals are not legally abandoned. Their owners return to move them to another field or to ship them out, usually before the cumbersome legal machinery has started to operate.
I admit that if the council, the corporation and the private company employed a full-time worker with legal knowledge to keep an eye on the land around Basildon and to take the necessary legal steps at the right time the problem could be confined or kept to reasonable proportions. Expenditure on such an officer is impracticable, especially because of the possible need for a pound, and because of the legal costs involved in an area where the law is unclear, to say the least.
The law allows the owner of the land to sell the horse if it has been kept there for more than 14 days. The scale of the problem is so large that if this section of the Act were put into operation the three organisations involved could well find themselves becoming major horse dealers, in addition to their many other responsibilities. I do not think that we would wish to go down that road.
The long-stop to the existing legislation, such as it is, is the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal. In theory it is a good piece of legislation, but in practice it does nothing for the animal and relies on knowledge of who the owner might be at the time in question.
As the animals are worth one price as meat, they can easily be sold without being seen, so that they can change hands three or four times while remaining in the field to which I have referred. Any action taken by the police involves long and complicated searches throughout Essex to find those responsible. The fact that horses cannot easily be linked to owners means that much time, money and manpower are spent on each search. This problem occurs not only with travellers. We have discovered that some smallholders with one or two horses over the limit allowed on their land are taking the same action.
The. National Farmers Union has come up with an effective arrangement for freeze branding, which is less painful than hot branding, but with the same long-lasting properties. Such a system, given the force of law, would enable private organisations and the police to identify much more simply the owner of a horse.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has designed a good code of practice on the tethering of horses which should go some way to ensure that suffering is eliminated. Included in the code is the provision that clean water should be available at all times. The water available on Pitsea marshes in my constituency can only be described as of dubious quality. The code states that food must be given in all cases where grazing is not adequate. The grazing on Pitsea marshes is reasonable, but cannot be expected to keep a horse in satisfactory health for any length of time. During the winter the animals do not have nearly enough to eat. The two horses that had to be put down had nearly starved to death. The code also contains a provision on the frequency of inspection. It states that horse and tether must be inspected at least twice in 24 hours. The horses are not tethered and, if they are seen by the owners once a month, they are very lucky. All the excellent advice is ignored, and the results are appalling.
What is needed is a consolidation of the law as it stands in relation to animal welfare, with extensions and additions to block not loopholes but veritable motorways through which those who would flout the spirit of the law drive. Freeze branding must be seriously considered, and administrative objections should be examined closely. The RSPCA code of practice on tethering should have the force of law behind it.
I do not believe that the House is disinterested in this matter. It is simply that it has been somewhat too pressed for time to act on the issue. I have every confidence that after my short speech today it will act.
In conclusion, I apologise in advance for being unable to stay to hear the response of the Leader of the House, which I look forward to reading in Hansard.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The matter that I ask to be debated before the Easter Adjournment is the immigration law and its operation in this country.
Many people in north Islington are very concerned about the way in which the immigration law operates. Indeed, in inner cities throughout the country many people are worried and frightened about the way in which the immigration law operates. Many go to bed at night fearing a knock on the door early the following morning, being told they will no longer be allowed to remain in the country, followed by forcible removal. Like many hon. Members who face similar situations, I take up a large number of individual cases every year. Last year I took up several hundred such cases with the Home Secretary, and I know that my hon. Friends regularly take up an even larger number of cases. This matter can no longer be disregarded and ignored. Later, I shall mention the report of the Commission for Racial Equality, and the need for an urgent debate on it.
Alongside the despair of many people in the country at the way in which the immigration law operates — the Kafka-like procedures, the Kafka-like trials, the so-called appeals against removal from the country and requests for entry into the country—there are other cases of people who seek refugee status in this country.
A couple from Cyprus, Katerina and Vassilis Nicola, have sought sanctuary in St. Mary's church, Eversholt street, in Euston. Their case is being taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and by a number of other hon. Members who are supporting him and the couple in what they are trying to do.
One has to ask what kind of democracy and civilisation exists when a couple from a country that has been a colony of this country for many years and is now a member of the Commonwealth, albeit a divided island, seek sanctuary in a church in order to avoid removal from this country. If that happened in many other parts of the world, I believe that Ministers would be leaping to the Dispatch Box to condemn a Government and regime that drove people to such despair. But, because it is Britain and because it is 1985, the Government are apparently indifferent. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Home Secretary considers the plight of this couple so that they may be allowed to remain permanently in the country.
I wish to explain how this couple came to be in the country at all. They have lived here for nine years. They used to live in the northern part of Cyprus. In 1974, the island of Cyprus was invaded by the Turkish army, which


took control of the northern part of the island. It must be said that Turkey is a member of NATO, and little has been done to remove its troops from Cyprus. Mrs. Nicola took refuge in a school when the army invaded, and subsequently in a refugee camp. Her husband was conscripted into the Greek Cypriot army. At the end of 1975, he was released from the army, she was able to get herself out of the refugee camp, and they fled to this country. Since that time they have been in Britain.
They have been told that they must return to their home. They cannot return to the northern part of Cyprus because it is under occupation by the Turkish army, which has illegally declared that part of the island independent, and their home no longer exists. If they go to the southern part of Cyprus where the Government of Greece is in charge, they have no home to go to, and they did not come from the south of Cyprus in the first place. The British Government maintain that they must leave this country, but they have no home to return to in Cyprus.
It is appalling that this couple, through no fault of their own, should be forced to seek sanctuary in a church in this country for fear of removal. They are a symbol of the fear experienced by many migrant families, the fear of being forcibly removed from the country. It is an insult to them and a disgrace to the country that this couple should be forced to take such action. It is much to the credit of the church and of the bishop that this couple have been allowed to remain in St. Mary's church, that the local congregation has supported them, that money has been collected to maintain them and that food has been provided for them. They are now in their 26th day in the church, and they intend to stay there until the Home Secretary is prepared to see sense.
I am sure that they would be more than happy to discuss their case with the Home Secretary if he went to that church to see them. They cannot leave for fear that, if they did, they would be picked up on the street outside by the police acting on behalf of the Home Office. I regard that as a disgraceful state of affairs in Britain in 1985.
Let us consider how this situation arose. The subject of refugees from Cyprus is not new. The war in Cyprus took place in 1974, when 10,000 refugees entered the United Kingdom. They came from the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus; they were simply refugees from the war. All had been uprooted from their homes in villages and towns and many had lost their possessions. They came to various parts of London, many to where I used to be a councillor, the borough of Haringey, where they were given help and support by the existing Cypriot community and by the community generally.
They came to Britain because they had relatives and close friends here and because of Britain's historical links with Cyprus, but also, frankly, because they had nowhere else to go. Having obtained sanctuary here, many of them stayed, are living happily here and are making an enormous contribution to our economy.
There have been endless arguments with the Home Office about the situation facing Cypriot refugees. Those who fell within the Home Office definition of "displaced persons" were granted special concessions and at first had their permits to stay extended from three to six months and then to a year. Those who were not accepted as displaced

persons were refused extensions and were treated as overstayers, or illegal immigrants, and were forced to leave the country.
Of the 10,000 Cypriot refugees who came here, only 2,000 remain. By 1981, the Home Office had become even more severe, and demanded that many of the remaining refugees had to return to Cyprus, the Home Office claiming that the situation on the island was stable. The Department started to deport Greek Cypriots to the south of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots to the north.
Thus, the Government were de facto accepting the partition of the island of Cyprus, even though Britain was a signatory to the treaty of guarantee and was involved in the independence negotiations that brought the state of Cyprus into being. It seems, therefore, that the British Government accepted the fact that the Turkish army had invaded and were giving de facto recognition to the Government there by deporting people to different parts of the island, in many cases firmly against the wishes of the people concerned.
Because of that, a large campaign grew up among members of the Cypriot community here, and they were supported by many other groups. They brought their anxieties to the attention of the Home Office, to hon. Members and to migrant workers' groups in Britain. They persuaded the then Minister of State to grant a concession, and in 1982 a concessionary policy was announced. Indefinite leave to remain in Britain was granted to Cypriot refugees who fell within the Home Office definition of "displaced persons." About 600 people benefited under that policy. Those who fell outside the policy were either deported or are still awaiting deportation. Those, for example, who did not enter the UK immediately after the 1974 war but who lived in refugee camps awaiting the outcome of the war crisis before coming here were not considered by the Home Office to be displaced persons and were not granted indefinite leave to stay.
That was an unfair way of operating the policy. I urge the Government to reconsider their whole attitude towards the refugees from Cyprus and to grant an amnesty to those who are here. That would remove their fear of being told that they must leave. It is appalling that this couple should be forced to seek sanctuary in a church in their effort to remain here in a place of safety.
I raise the case of Mr. and Mrs. Nicola because it is serious and demands an urgent answer from the Home Office. They should be allowed to stay here. I raise it because it is symptomatic of the way in which immigration policy operates in this country. It is also symptomatic of the attitude of the Home Office to many migrant groups.
Opposition Members have consistently pressed the Government to provide time to debate the report of the Commission for Racial Equality on immigration control procedures. That lengthy document, which was painstakingly put together after many interviews with Home Office staff and others, is damning in the extreme about the way in which the immigration service operates. I will quote only two of the report's general conclusions.
The promotion of good race relations should be a specific consideration in the administration of immigration control, and in that respect the report says in its conclusions that that
depends not on allaying fears and prejudices of a section of the majority community, though they must be recognised and faced, but on a determination by the government to uphold the rights of all people to fair and decent treatment.


Under existing immigration law and procedures in this country, migrants are not treated in the same way as the rest of our citizens. The onus that rests on them to prove their innocence is much greater than is normal under British law.
Too great an emphasis has been placed in the operation of the procedures on the detection of bogus applicants, at an unacceptable cost to genuine families and to race relations generally. Another of the report's conclusions states:
In our view, of the basic mistakes which it is possible for an administrative system of this sort to make, it is far worse wrongly to refuse a genuine applicant than to admit a bogus one; and it is far worse to delay the exercise of their rights by genuine applicants than to allow a bogus applicant through the net in efforts to avoid delays.
This country stands condemned by many people in the world because of the operation of our immigration policy and the way migrants are treated. They condemn the way in which people are bundled out of the country — the way Afia Begum was thrown out of Britain whereas Zola Budd was welcomed here. The Government stand condemned for what I believe are the racist practices endemic in Britain's immigration laws. There are divided families, people who are fearful of being removed, people from Bangladesh who are trying and are entitled to come here, and many others.
The House should debate this serious matter in a way that will put at rest the fears and concerns of many migrant families. Couples such as Mr. and Mrs. Nicola should no longer have to go through the indignity of seeking sanctuary in a church so as to remain in Britain. They should have peace and be allowed to continue to make the valuable contribution to the community that they have been making in the nine years that they have been in Britain.

Mr. John Carlisle: I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that we should be discussing South Africa — against the sad backcloth of the events in the eastern Cape in recent days — and I shall take the advice of Mr. Speaker, who yesterday half suggested that this subject should be mentioned. It is an important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to speak about it. We should not be afraid to discuss such matters, and I hope that it will be useful to the South African authorities to listen to both sides of the argument.
It is a pleasure for me to speak in the calmer atmosphere of the Chamber of the House of Commons, whereas in recent months I have delivered similar orations in British universities and colleges of further education, where I have received much abuse and, in some cases, much violence, perpetrated on the whole, of course, by those most opposed to what I had to say.
There is a genuineness of purpose among those who are represented by the anti-apartheid movement—which, I believe, includes the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the leader of the Liberal party, the leader of the SDP and other Opposition Members—in urging that the problems of South Africa must be solved. Indeed, I believe that that same genuine belief exists among Church leaders on both sides, here and in South Africa. Those of us who understand a little of the problems of South Africa

appreciate the anger and, in some cases, the utter frustration that is suffered by the black community at their lot. I say that in as genuine a way as I can.
Opposition Members, particularly those such as the hon. Member for Walsall, North, must appreciate that it is easy, in the comfortable precincts of Westminster— indeed, in the comfort of the free democracy which we in this country enjoy — to parade their consciences and those of their fellow travellers, to borrow some words from the hon. Member for Walsall, North, and to forget the violation of human rights that is taking place in countries throughout the world.
Despite the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, it is not often we hear from him or from his hon. Friends protests about what is going on in eastern Europe or in South America, although I was pleased to see the early-day motion on Chile which was put down by the Opposition the other day. We do not hear protests from them about what is going on in the far east, in Cambodia, for example, nor about what is going on in black Africa itself, particularly Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Walsall, North and his hon. Friends have been silent in their condemnation of the recent slaughterings in that sad country and of the regime which the hon. Gentleman holds up as the epitome of all that black Africa stands for.
This debate must always be seen in the context of the history of African politics. It must be seen, sadly, in the context of a continent which is now dominated by Marxism, where many states are now one-party states. Of course, one man, one vote exists—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Once.

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, once. Perhaps more important, the tribal background of the political strife in South Africa is such that the Westminster system is not necessarily the best. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the system of one man, one vote for South Africa tomorrow is the answer.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Walsall, North say at the beginning of his speech that I had always condemned apartheid. It is a system which is a violation of human rights, but I understand it and I understand why it exists. That does not mean that I support it. It is against the background of the large problems that South Africa is facing that we must debate the issue. Rural blacks are moving into urban areas, which is not unusual in Africa, as hon. Members will know. There are the problems of the shanty towns, which are not particular to South Africa, but which exist in most major cities throughout the world. It is in that context that we must consider the argument on a basis of calm appraisal, rather than in the sort of violent discussion which Opposition Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Walsall, North, seem to promote in this place.
The leader of the Social Democrats and many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are now joining the American chorus by calling for some form of disinvestment in South Africa. Coupled with that, many of them are making serious allegations against British companies and the conditions of the employees of those companies in South Africa. Those arguments are scurrilous and discredit totally those who make them. On the whole, they are made in complete ignorance of the situation.
It is a fact that of those who work for the 350 or so British companies in South Africa about 98 per cent. are


paid above the minimum level set by the European code. Some of our greatest companies, like BP and Barclays, which we debated some time ago in the House, have spent enormous sums on social benefits and are giving equal opportunity in education, training, agriculture, welfare and housing to all their workers. Indeed, the record of Barclays, castigated so much by the anti-apartheid movement out of sheer ignorance, would stand in any country throughout the world. I certainly salute what it has done for the advancement of black wages.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the apology he is giving for the regime in South Africa ought to be followed by an explanation of the profits made by those companies out of virtual slave labour in South Africa? Does he not agree that it is time totally to condemn apartheid and British commercial participation in it?

Mr. Carlisle: I was afraid that the hon. Gentleman, in his ignorance and naivety, would go down that path. If he had been listening, he would have heard me explain what British companies are doing. I shall repeat it, because obviously he did not hear it, or did not want to hear it, the first time. About 98 per cent. of the employees of British companies are paid above the minimum level set by the European code, not by the South African code. If that is slave labour, the hon. Gentleman is somewhat misguided in his information.

Mr. Corbyn: They still get low wages.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall come on to low wages, because I knew that the hon. Gentleman would bring that up.
Another argument that is put is that there is a disparity between black and white wages. That is well paraded by Opposition Members. It is a fact that the disparity is reducing dramatically. Many people in America, sitting in the nice precincts of American suburbs, castigate South Africa for the fact that the disparity between black and white wages is not as small as it is in the United States of America. I remind the House that between 1972 and 1982 in South Africa the real wages of the whites dropped by 7 per cent. and in the same period, the only period for which figures are available, the wages of the blacks went up by 68 per cent. I suggest that the hon. Member goes back to his books and checks his facts. The fact is that many skilled blacks in South Africa are now enjoying a middle class standard of living and are advancing dramatically within the professions and in clerical jobs.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has produced figures, but, as he well knows, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Can he give us the median level for black wages against the median level for white wages in South Africa?

Mr. Carlisle: As a Member on the Front Bench would say, given notice of that question I shall send the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) the figures. I resent his accusation of lies and damned lies. The information that I have comes from the Middlesex polytechnic of London, which may interest London Members. It is written by An Spandau, who is a German, not a South African, and who has made his own investigations into various countries throughout the world. The figures are his; they are not South African figures. They are fact, not lies as the hon. Member for Yeovil suggested.
South Africa has to create 400,000 jobs just to keep those who are employed at the moment in employment. The calls for disinvestment, which are now siren cries from both sides of the Atlantic, will do more than anything else to ruin the prospects of those blacks who are beginning to find that they can advance to the middle classes and to better jobs. To those Opposition Members and to those outside the House who say that to trade with South Africa, which was part of the hint by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), is to support the apartheid regime—

Mr. Corbyn: That is right.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman says that that is right. If that is the case, why are 49 out of 51 black African countries trading with South Africa? Are they supporting the black regime by their trade? Why does South Africa sell £500 million worth of goods to black Africa each year? Is that supporting the apartheid regime? Why are up to 1·5 million foreign labourers in South Africa? Are they supporting the apartheid regime? What the hon. Gentleman does not know, and will not recognise, is that conditions of work within South Africa are such that 1·5 million illegal immigrants are in South Africa looking for conditions which they cannot enjoy in their own countries.
The argument is often put by Opposition Members that if we ceased this trade it would not affect the blacks. Perhaps I can remind hon. Members that if trade between the Western world and South Africa dropped by only 20 per cent., about 90,000 whites and about 350,000 blacks as well would lose their jobs. Is that what Opposition Members really want to see with their programme of disinvestment? They say that other markets could be found. Again, that has been put forward by some people in America. At present, 10 per cent. of our overseas trade is with South Africa, and up to 250,000 jobs in this country are dependent upon that trade. I would not trade 250,000 jobs in the pious hope that what I was doing was helping the blacks, on two bases—those jobs should never be lost, and blacks would be the first to suffer.

Mr. Ashdown: May I tempt the hon. Gentleman a little further on trade? Will the hon. Gentleman join his colleague the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) — he has just been appointed chairman of the Conservative party's international office—in calling for a relaxation of the embargo on arms trade with South Africa? The hon. Member for Dorset, West called for the sale of helicopters with military potential to the South African Government. Would the hon. Gentleman go that far?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, I would, because the basis of the United Nation's resolution which is supported by this country is bogus. It includes forms of defence which are desperately needed on the African coast in and around the Cape and further north. The hon. Member for Yeovil, who has made a face at what I have just said, might like to know that for several hundreds of miles of the African coast there is no form of air-sea rescue other than that provided by the South African Government. I believe that this country should break that embargo and sell arms to South Africa.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I am looking at the clock. I shall give way for the last time to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Winnick: I have looked up the Register of Members' Interests, and I notice that in September 1984 the hon. Gentleman paid a visit to South Africa sponsored by the South African Government. Would it not be more forthright for the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House that he has been on a free trip to South Africa—and to do so while he is speaking so that I do not have to look up the Register of Members' Interests — which was sponsored by the South African Government? The hon. Gentleman is telling us what is in the South African Government's brief to him.

Mr. Carlisle: Let me assist the hon. Gentleman by telling him that I have been on several trips to South Africa. In no case have I paid the air fare for the first class travel on all my journeys to South Africa or for the first class hotels where I have stayed. If the hon. Gentleman's knowledge is so great, why does he not go to South Africa and look for himself? I make an offer to him that I will do all that I can to persuade someone to fund him—not necessarily the Government — to see for himself. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to go to South Africa because he, like thousands of others, would return having changed his mind after seeing the true picture.
I am sorry to shatter the calmer atmosphere which the debate was enjoying before the hon. Member for Walsall, North, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and myself made our points. I make no apology for bringing to the attention of the House the bogus case of the Opposition and of some Members of the American Congress, especially Senator Kennedy.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is advancing an excellent case which I hope will improve the Opposition's education. Will he comment briefly on the fact that the Wiehan commission led to the recognition and establishment of black trade unions in South Africa? Free trade unionism is certainly not practised behind the iron curtain. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be able to intervene yet again on this point. Will my hon. Friend confirm that great strides have been made in granting freehold rights to urban blacks—a unique measure which is not the custom behind the iron curtain? These are reforms of considerable magnitude, for which the South African Government should receive credit in the free world.

Mr. Carlisle: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks with a deep knowledge and understanding of the position, unlike the Opposition. Only this afternoon on the Floor of the House my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged that the freehold system had been advanced to blacks. That is a great advance for South Africans.
I should have liked to cover the major constitutional changes that have taken place and the need and will for reform in South Africa. Suffice it to say that if we are genuine in our belief that we want to help South Africa, as I think some Opposition Members are, surely it would be better for us to co-operate with the South Africans and recognise their need for peaceful change.
The events of the past few days have cast a shadow over South Africa and its relationship with the rest of the world, and we deeply regret them. We must understand, however, that in any form of change there will be, as the South African ambassador put it, some form of violent revolution. Those of us who are desperately trying to help

all the peoples of South Africa are upset by the fact that the violent revolution perpetrated by some Opposition Members, Bishop Tutu and other well-meaning clerics and politicians can lead only to disaster and bloodshed in South Africa. The policy of disinvestment, so eloquently put forward by hon. Members and those on the other side of the Atlantic, will irrevocably harm the blacks first. I believe that this important subject should be brought up many times on the Floor of the House and that both sides of the argument should be heard.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I listened to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) with a growing sense of frustration and sadness. I did not seek to intervene during his speech because we can all intervene with platitudes, from a standard point of view and, of course, from interest. My one interest in life is in human beings. I tend to judge a regime by what happens to its citizens. I would listen to anyone who can explain to me why it is necessary to shoot coloured people in a township on the anniversary of the terrible massacre 25 years ago and to bulldoze houses and move people from their homelands. We are talking not about economics, but about the quality of life and the right to life.
I concede that many regimes in Africa, Asia and South America are a disgrace to those humanitarian principles that are meant to be the foundation of the United Nations charter. I judge the South African regime against that background. I do not wish to say too much on that subject, because that is not why I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the tests of the right to express political views, to object and to live where one wants, the South African regime fails. So long as that regime continues to fail on those simple humanitarian grounds, I shall be against it just as I am against the regimes in Chile, eastern Europe and many other parts of the world where those simple tests are not met.

Mr. John Carlisle: I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's tone. If he reads my speech in the Official Report tomorrow and other speeches that I have made in this place and outside, he will recognise the genuine need for reform. The hon. Gentleman and I might differ about the means of achieving that reform.

Mr. Bermingham: In the long term, to apologise for and excuse the actions of the regime while being critical of those actions does the South African people no good. It might be better for the people of Africa as a whole if we in the West, including America, who do not like what we see, whether in Mozambique or Zimbabwe—my name has been recorded as one who has protested about the recent arrests of trade unionists in Zimbabwe—had the courage to say, "Your regime fails the test." We should seek not to apologise but to explain that we do not tolerate such conduct.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on a point of accuracy?

Mr. Bermingham: I shall give way for 15 seconds.

Mr. Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that enforced removals have now been suspended in South Africa? This was announced by one of the top Ministers in the Republic's Government, Dr. Gerrit van Viljoen.


Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his remarks about people being forced to leave their homes, because enforced removals have now been suspended?

Mr. Bermingham: I accept unreservedly that there has been a suspension. The results of the enforced removals still stand for those who were forced to move.
I am very pleased to see the Leader of the House in his place because, as I understand it, he is the Minister who is in touch with each of the Departments for the purpose of arranging the business of the House. He therefore no doubt has close and frequent contact with, for instance, the Departments of Employment, of Health and Social Security and of Energy. I hope that he can assure the House before the Easter recess that he has informed those Departments that the miners' strike is now over.
I am not being facetious; I am seeking to raise an extremely important point, because somebody somewhere in the system—I do not suggest that it was the Minister, because I have no evidence by which to identify who is responsible — is acting in a way that can only be described as extraordinarily vicious. What is going on at present is an absolute disgrace. I do not seek to raise the matter which was raised in the House last night with regard to miners who have been dismissed during the strike, although I notice that it is stated in The Guardian today that a number of sacked miners are barred from claiming benefits. Some are now, I am very pleased to see, beginning to win their claims for unfair dismissal, but of course they are all suffering, anyway.
A number of my constituents are miners, as the Leader of the House is aware. I want to raise the case of one of them, Brian Knowles, who in August last year, during the strike, decided to leave the coal industry. I want to deal generally with the cases of those who resigned during the strike and of those who, because of redundancy and so on, find themselves in the following farcical position.
Having resigned in August, Brian Knowles put in a claim for unemployment benefit. He was told that he could not resign in the middle of a strike. I cannot find where this is stated in the rules; nor, indeed, can anybody else. Instead of getting the normal unemployment benefit, he was given supplementary benefit at the reduced level. That continued from August of last year until 4 March. I raised the matter with Ministers, wrote letters, but got nowhere. Then, on 4 March, Mr. Knowles decided that, as the men were back at work, he would go to the employment office and sign on. He has a wife and children, he has debts and he is in poverty, so he asked for unemployment benefit.
He was told that, as far as the Department of Employment was concerned, the strike was not over and that he would have to apply to the arbitrator, a gentleman in Southampton, who would determine when the strike was over. So the unemployment resources centre in St. Helens wrote to Southampton. The centre got a lovely letter back saying that they did not answer letters from people in unemployment centres. I wonder if they would answer a letter from me. I suspect not. Who do they answer? Who do they think they are? Ministers come to the House and say that the strike is terminated, but they do not work on that. They say that they cannot judge the strike to be over until production levels are up. They also

now raise the point about the overtime ban which still exists in the coalfields. Apparently, not until that is over will they admit that the industrial dispute is over.
Someone, somewhere, is determined to crucify people such as Brian Knowles — thousands of people in this country. This extends not just to those who resigned during the strike but also to those who had agreed to take redundancy before the strike commenced but who asked to stay on for particular reasons and were then involved in the dispute, to those who through ill health or for other reasons suddenly found that, after they had agreed to redundancy terms, the strike intervened. Now that the strike is over, everything is held up. I wonder if the Leader of the House would be so kind as to inform the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Employment before the Easter recess that the mining dispute is now over. It would help.
The Leader of the House may ask why these men do not apply to the various tribunals. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) applied in November for a tribunal hearing on this matter. That tribunal has not yet sat. These hearings can be delayed.
Why must people who are elderly, or sick, or have left the mining industry for other reasons be treated in this mean, petty, spiteful way? I thought that we were seeking reconciliation with the miners. I can assure the House that in the constituency of St. Helens and in the mining areas generally people are well aware of what is happening, of the spitefulness and meanness, and that adds to the bitterness. It is so unnecessary, and I hope that the Leader of the House can find time to resolve this nasty problem.

Mr. Peter Shore: It is not for me to reply to the speeches made in this debate, although I have noted them, and the fact that no fewer than 15 have been delivered over the last two and a half hours. I believe that the House owes a debt of gratitude to those hon. Members for the range of important subjects which they have briefly addressed. If I single out one or two it is because they certainly deserve it.
The two speeches made on the subject of the Crown Proceedings Act and the possibility of service men being treated more generously in connection with injuries sustained certainly require attention. The Act has stood for too long unchanged. I think too that the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for the early publication of the two reports on the Severn bridge really ought to be responded to. I certainly think that our immigration procedures need the most urgent review and a far more sympathetic administration than they are getting at the present time.
Last, but not least, I believe that my hon. Friends were indeed right to raise the whole ghastly tragedy of recent events in South Africa, themselves a repeat of the appalling massacre at Sharpeville 25 years ago. Although I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), because he has clearly studied the subject in some depth, I found the general sentiments which he expressed, particularly on this occasion, when there is so much suffering and loss of life in South Africa, pretty repugnant.
I wish to say something about two other matters—one which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has just broached, about the


aftermath of the coal industry strike, and, secondly, the question of Mr. Levene as the chief official concerned with arms procurement in the Ministry of Defence.
With regard to the bitter legacy of the coal strike, I assume that everyone has a strong wish that the wounds that have been sustained during the past 12 months should be healed as rapidly as possible. Against that background, I was shocked when I read today that sacked miners cannot even now claim unemployment or supplementary benefit and that the £16 deduction from their families' social security income is still being exacted by the DHSS. Therefore, their families are still ineligible for the £16 benefit that strike pay is assumed to provide.
I should like to know who has made that ruling. It cannot be one for regional officials of the Department of Health and Social Security; it must have come from Ministers. It is a scandalous decision. It is punitive, vindictive and designed to ensure not only that the wounds of the strike do not heal but that they deepen and fester. So too is the policy decison emanating from the National Coal Board HQ, as all will acknowledge who listened to Mr. MacGregor on television on the subject of teaching the lessons of indiscipline—that many hundreds of men dismissed during the strike should not be re-employed.
The correct attitude to the problem was stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Friday 8 March, when he rightly said that the way to deal with the matter was for management sensibly to consider
each case on its merits.
My right hon. Friend said that unions should have "the opportunity to represent individual workers.
Those who have been found guilty in the courts of minor offences, including the daubing of walls, taking coal to keep their families warm, obstruction and other petty offences, should not be dismissed. There are other cases too in which, as the recent industrial tribunal decision in favour of Mr. Norman Lynch makes plain, such dismissals are unjustifiable under industrial law.
Surely the time has come for a general instruction to area coal managers, including Scotland's, to consider all dismissal cases on their merits. It is up to the Minister to see that that is done.
Therefore, what we want from the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Energy is an early statement on both those subjects. It is no good the NCB taking out four-page advertisements in the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers proclaiming, as they did today:
you're better off with coal and Britain can provide it
if in reality official policy makes it certain that the bitterness of the past year is allowed to continue and to fester.
The second subject that I wish to raise is the disgraceful and quite extraordinary story of Mr. Peter Levene, recently appointed head of the Ministry of Defence arms procurement programme. The importance of that case is plain to everyone except the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence.
The constitutional doctrine on the acceptance of outside appointments by former civil servants was recently stated in the Government's White Paper containing their response to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, "Acceptance of Outside Appointments by Crown Servants". In their general observations, they said:

The Government agrees with the Committee that the rules governing the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants have to strike a balance between two principles; the principle of maximum possible freedom of movement, which is a matter not only of personal liberty but also of the economic and other benefits of interchange between the public service and other occupations and spheres of activity; and the requirement to avoid corruption or impropriety, or the suspicion of them, in relation to the public service.
That is fair enough, but the doctrine must apply equally to industrialists and business men seconded or appointed to the Civil Service, particularly the requirement to avoid
corruption or impropriety, or the suspicion of them, in relation to the public service.
No one can dispute that serious improprieties have already been committed. In the case of Mr. Levene, the Civil Service Commission was not asked to consider what is called the "issue of qualification" nor was there any pretence that the appointment had been made open to general applications. It is reported that the Civil Service commissioners considered resignation en bloc, and it is a pity that they did not carry out their threat. For without such checks as are written into practice and procedure, appointments can be made at the grace and favour of Ministers and the door is wide open to favouritism, nepotism and worse.
So why was Mr. Levene appointed in breach of those rules? Who authorised the payment of £107,000 per annum to Mr. Levene, who now becomes the highest paid civil servant in the land? What are the ethics and where is the common sense in appointing as chief of defence procurement the chairman of a major arms equipment supplier, United Scientific Holdings?
Now, after pressure, we learn that Mr. Levene is to be refused access to papers relating to his former company and other associated companies for a 12-month period, and, further, that he will be subject to Civil Service rules when he leaves the Civil Service. That is to say that he will have the obligation simply to inform the Diamond commission before taking up a new job within two years of leaving his present post, a requirement which, as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee stated, has no sanction behind it.
Serious issues are involved in this case, and it is not the only one. In its editorial of 22 March, under the title, "A Lingering Whiff', The Times recalled:
over a period of five recent years some 1,400 movements from Whitehall into private business were made by the senior personnel of a single department yet of these a paltry few were delayed or subjected to extensive inquiry. Then the permanent secretary of the same department, within months of his retirement, joins the board of an aircraft supply company and a few months later becomes chairman of a major armament contractor.
Of course, the Department to which The Times is referring is the Ministry of Defence.
The Government have done much to damage the whole British economy and, indeed, the British people. The damage being done to the Civil Service is less obvious, but no less serious. Standards of conduct are slipping, and slipping fast. There should therefore be an early debate not only on the case of Mr. Levene but on the whole clutch of issues raised by the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Government's inadequate response to it. I very much hope that the Leader of the House will have something to say about that matter, too.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): This afternoon's debate is what is now a traditional one on the recess motion, which gives Back Benchers the opportunity to raise a whole host of topics, and it is my privilege to seek to answer them with such skill as I have. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will permit me, of course to acknowledge what he has just mentioned in respect of Mr. Levene, but to proceed to the more traditional role that I have to perform on such occasions.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of serious improprieties, favouritism and nepotism. Those are all devastating charges and are wholly unmerited relative to an appointment which, I agree at once, was bound to be controversial. However, I have noted the anxiety that the right hon. Gentleman expressed. It is only right that I should do so. I shall refer the matter to those of my right hon. Friends to whom it is most appropriately directed. I also noted the interest that the right hon. Gentleman expressed in the matter being returned to on the Floor of the House.
In its variety, the debate has not disappointed any of the connoisseurs who now follow these occasions. I shall try to comment on the speeches of each of my hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate.
I shall start with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), who mentioned the serious difficulties in his constituency over the South Trafford hospital. I quite understand his anxiety and his concern that the regional health authority has not yet made as public as he would wish its position on the matter. I shall see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services knows of his anxiety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) brought the whole of our consideration close to home when he complained about the Car Park. He has been beaten to it. It must be a growing issue of contention, as I have already been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) on the matter. I have taken note of the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, and I hope to be in touch with him in due course.
My hon. Friend also referred to the extraordinary delay in dealing with the planning appeal by the Bluebell line. I have been told that the decision should be available within the next two or three weeks. I do know whether that is news to my hon. Friend. If it is, he may like to reflect that it was probably his intervention that brought about that happy conclusion.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Pull the other one.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's comment is quite unnecessary. This debate before our much-needed rest is no occasion for cynical comments such as I would not normally associate with so distinguished a scholar as my hon. Friend.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned the problems and difficulties created for service men by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. He specifically mentioned a case on which it is not appropriate for me to comment as it is still under

consideration. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney observed that that law had stood since the time of the Labour Government of the immediate post-war years. To some, that may be a sign that it is encrusted with barnacles. Others may feel that, whatever its administrative defects, the law has survived many scrutinies which have concluded that any departure from it would make the situation worse rather than better.
I shall, however, refer the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties to my right hon. Friend and point out that they were endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I should also say that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has explained that he is unable to be present to hear my reply to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has won the palm, in that he raised a topic which was incomprehensible to me at the outset and which remained so. I am sure that it will feature in The Times diary tomorrow—

Mr. Gerald Malone: Too late.

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for that comment, which reveals the innocence of my relationship with The Times diary.
In this case, the absurdity does not even derive from a proposal by the European Community. There are plans for the outlawing of an anti-fouling chemical which could be only partial in its application and whose only sure result would be to cause commercial damage to certain of my hon. Friend's constituents. That situation is so inequitable that I shall at once remind my right hon. Friend of it—he is currently considering it—and I hope that there will be a happy and commonsense outcome.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is anxious about the experiences of some of the new industries which have been set up as satellites of the new-style British Telecom. I note what the hon. Gentleman said. He did not mention whether a reference had been made to Oftel in that context. That might be one remedy, but I shall see that the matter is further considered.
With that heroic optimism which often lends distinction to these debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale raised the matter of the reform of the rating system. As he reminds us, he has done so on previous occasions. I can only say that he is 12 months nearer to an answer—if answer there is to be—than he was when the matter was last considered.
I remind my hon. Friend that this debate is only the hors d'oeuvres to the main course of today's proceedings, the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, in which I see that the Scottish rating system is to be debated for a full three hours. Many hon. Members might say that three hours is inadequate time for such a debate.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Very much so.

Mr. Biffen: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is of lasting topicality and has erupted, north of the border, from a smouldering state into the most rampant flames. We might do well to take guidance from his suggestion that the matter needs to be seriously considered again.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke about the situation in the Province in the light of developments over the past few days. We can all understand his concern about the destructive


consequences of uncertainty. To the voice of the right hon. Gentleman was joined that of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy).
The right hon. Gentleman stated that the position of the Government was that there could be no change in Ulster's constitutional position without the free and willing consent of its people. That commitment has existed for decades, and nowhere has it been repeated more powerfully than from the lips of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am happy to repeat this evening that that is the situation.
We all appreciate that of all our citizens in the United Kingdom those in the Province live under the most relentless pressures. It is all too easy on this side of the Irish sea, and in this place, to lose touch with the real anxiety that is bound to exist in the Province under those pressures.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke, in the context of recent reports, about the whole question of the custody of children and family law reform. His argument was most persuasive and, as so often in such cases, one understands the frustration that is felt when persuasiveness has no obvious consequence in the form of legislation.
I am told that the Government are considering legislation. I have been Leader of the House for long enough to know that, if a measure is not well over the horizon by this stage in the year, it will not appear in the current Session. It is the hon. Gentleman's view that the current legislation might accommodate the point at issue if the long title could be adjusted. I shall refer those points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and consider whether we can meet the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The hon. Gentleman's namesake, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), referred to the Severn bridge. Year by year, as I have sat here, my admiration for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has pursued the issue of the Severn bridge has grown. One might say that he is the Dalyell of Gwent. The hon. Gentleman requested that I should pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport a request that both reports should be published. I shall of course do so. I realise that the matter is of the utmost concern in South Wales, and I appreciate the concern of the people of South Wales that their industrial future rests on the provision of appropriate road access to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) devoted the major part of his speech to South Africa. However, he also asked me to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment his anxieties about the present level of council house starts. I shall not anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply, but any fair judge of the Government's housing programme must take account of our great emphasis upon private house building and, above all, on house improvement as the means of securing the national housing stock. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has explained why he must be absent for this stage of the debate. He made an effective speech about animal welfare as it relates to horses. Anyone who comes from a constituency such as my hon. Friend's, which is suburban, and where, on the whole, there are a great many horses without the full advantage of a truly rural environment, knows only too well that the issue on which my hon. Friend touched is a real and growing problem in animal

welfare. I hope that my hon. Friend will be successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills in the next Session, as an amendment to the Animals Act 1971 could very well achieve the purpose that he had in mind. Meanwhile, he has today opened his campaign most professionally.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) brought to our debate the consideration of immigration law and asked whether I would refer to the Home Secretary, once again, the Nicola case so that it might be considered further. I undertake to do that. The hon. Gentleman was determined in his attack on how we administer immigration. He described Britain as standing condemned and our immigration procedures as a disgrace. There is a good case to be made for saying that our immigration law and its application are a testimony to the tremendous tolerance of the host community, above all the working-class host community, which has had to deal with the consequences of immigration. I hope that when we debate these matters we shall not do so in a sense of self-denigration, but rather with measured praise of how we have tried to tackle considerable and difficult problems.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) mentioned constituents who are suffering from the consequences of how the mining dispute concluded — without a settlement between union and employers. I realise that it has given rise to difficulties, and if he would like to give me more details about the case that he has in mind I might wish to approach the Government Departments direct. However, I am sure that we can help the hon. Gentleman in some way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the problems of the European Community and the serious problems of taxation implicit in what is now being decided, which often runs outwith our normal forms of public expenditure control. He said that the matter was now being considered by the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that the whole House is interested to know what its findings will be. I suspect that this matter will increasingly occupy the House's attention. My hon. Friend was kind enough to write to me about VAT on credit cards, and I shall do all that I can to accommodate a discussion in the appropriate Standing Committee.
I have deliberately left until the end the debate on South Africa. I have an uneasy feeling that this evening's debate will be a pointer to recurring debates on the subject. The debate was made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North and by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). A situation redolent of all the poignancy of a Greek tragedy is now unfolding in South Africa. It is one in which our frustrations will be that much more as we realise that the effective way in which we can influence matters is tremendously limited, especially relative to the free and easy and bombastic moralising which so often has characterised our contribution to this debate hitherto. As we must try to relate our sense of feeling with our ability to do something, that becomes a true test. It is a test for that Government but, above all, for the House, which cradles government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 4th April do adjourn until Monday 15th April and at its rising on Friday 3rd May do adjourn until Tuesday 7th May, and that the House shall not adjourn on Thursday 4th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Scottish Teachers (Strike Action)

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 113(2) (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Gerald Malone: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise an exceptionally important matter for Scotland — the effect that teachers' strike action is having on Scottish pupils.
I shall divide my comments into two areas: first, the general effects of the dispute in Scotland and how I hope they might be solved and, secondly, the effects of strike action on my constituency. The effects have been rather singular and different. I attempted to secure this debate to echo the views of my colleagues from Scotland, although I do not do so in any animosity towards the merits of the teachers' case. There are differences between opposite sides of the House and between my views and those of many people in teaching. However, I should like to emphasise that there is a fund of good will and sympathy for many of the important points made by teachers to me and my colleagues. It would be helpful if we had an opportunity constructively to express that sympathetic view. I hope that that spirit will be clear to teachers in my constituency, to teachers throughout Scotland and to parents.
We should consider the nub of the issue that is causing difficulty and preventing negotiation and see how it can be overcome. The difficulty faced by teachers and the Government is the demand for an independent pay review. That difficulty is not quite as substantial as it was, because a significant number of teachers concede that the best way forward is to negotiate through the statutory joint negotiating machinery and to pursue the offers that the Government have made through that mechanism. The Educational Institute of Scotland is almost alone in standing out for an independent pay review. That intransigence is causing the difficulties which school-children in Scotland are now experiencing. It is a log-jam of which parents are becoming increasingly impatient because they have seen flexibility from only one side in the dispute—from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He alone has moved. It is becoming increasingly unclear why the offer that he has put down cannot be explored properly—

Mr. John Home Robertson: Which offer?

Mr. Malone: —as we would be happy to support some parts of the teachers' case.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asks which offer. I am happy to tell him. It is an important offer during such negotiations. It is an offer to find new funding over and above the record funds that are being spent in Scotland per pupil in the primary and secondary sectors of education, and to finance with those funds a suitable package, which can be negotiated through the joint statutory negotiating machinery.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is misleading the House when he says that? The Secretary of State said that he would consider carefully whether he could find extra money to finance the package. He has made no promises to finance a package.

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that to set out firm positions and to define sums or claims at the outset of negotiations is patently absurd. He also knows full well that there has been no detailed articulated demand from the EIS in the dispute. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend's offer to find new funds is not a sign of flexibility, especially as Mr. Pollock of the EIS conceded it to be a sign of flexibility, is nonsense.
The offer should be explored. It would not prejudice the teachers' rights, and in no sense would it imply that they must accept it. It would be helpful for me as a Back-Bench Member to explore the terms of the offer, and if my colleagues and I thought it appropriate, to apply whatever pressure we felt necessary to meet the rightful demands of teachers in Scotland.
It is important for teachers and the people of Scotland to understand the sincerity with which the teachers' demand for an independent pay review is supported by Opposition Members. There is no substance in it. It is implied that if Opposition Members were in government and had the levers of power within their control, they would concede an independent pay review for teachers. That means that they would be bound to give an independent pay review to other public sector bodies which required it. That is the implication of conceding an independent pay review to teachers.
Why should a procedure be made available only to the public sector? Perhaps we should debate whether we are to embark on a system of independent pay reviews throughout every sector of the economy. Opposition Members are misleading the public when they say that they would run down this road with the teachers, but would be prevented from running down exactly the same road of wage bargaining with other interests. That is nonsense.
The claims to back an independent pay review run uncomfortably with many of the statements from Opposition Members following the Budget. On the one hand they ask for an independent review, presumably with the implication that it would be accepted no matter what level it set, and on the other they demand some sort of incomes policy or incomes strategy. To pursue both courses at once is misleading, and deceives the Scottish people and the teachers whom they claim to support. It is blatantly dishonest.
Alliance politicians consistently pledge themselves to a firm incomes policy. I do not know how they can justify granting an independent pay review hand in hand with a policy of controlling incomes and, presumably,


relativities. I was interested to read an article in The Sunday Times of 17 March by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). He said that he would
introduce an incomes strategy, to distribute more rewards more fairly and keep inflation down.
If the right hon. Gentleman were to embark on a policy of independent pay reviews throughout the public sector, it would not ride easily with that claim.

Mr. Malcom Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how a Government who have been in power for six years and have cut public sector pay to the bone can say anything about fairness or justice, or speak of a mechanism for relating pay in the public sector fairly to pay in the private sector? That is an incomes strategy, and that is what we support. Conservative Members have no fair means of assessing pay in the public sector. All public sector pay has been screwed down, except that earned by Tories.

Mr. Malone: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about a fair way of assessing the income of people in the public sector, the way not to go about it is to concede one independent pay review to one public sector body. It is illogical to suggest that the teachers should be supported in this issue, when Opposition Members are not prepared to say what the rest of their policy is.
It must be made extremely clear to the teaching profession in Scotland that, while Opposition Members may happily consort with teachers in this demand for an independent pay review, if Opposition Members were in office, in the light of the policy that they have already stated following the Budget, they would be the last people to concede that review.

Mr. George Robertson: Can we take it that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the independent review procedures that already apply and have been carried out by the Government for the police service, the armed forces and the fire service?

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that many concessions were granted by people involved in those reviews, which are not even now on the table for the teachers. If the teachers sought arbitration, his point may be valid, but they do not seek arbitration. The absurdity of their position is that they want an independent pay review and want its results referred to the statutory joint negotiating machinery, to which they refuse to resort. That is the absurd illogicality of their case, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
If we are discussing a way to achieve a quick end to the dispute and to its detrimental effects on Scottish schoolchildren, the first way forward is to explore my right hon. Friend's offer. I cannot understand why those who say that the results of an independent review must in any event be referred to the statutory negotiating machinery are not prepared fully to explore my right hon. Friend's offer. At the end of the day it may be exposed to be no offer at all. I do not know that; indeed, no one knows it. The teachers who refuse to use the negotiating machinery do not know that either. If we are talking about a rapid resolution of the dispute, the joint negotiating machinery should be used.
By encouraging teachers in what Opposition Members well know to be an utterly impossible objective, which they could not fulfil even within their own policy

guidelines, Opposition Members are more responsible than striking teachers for the damage being done to the education of children in Scottish schools.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Houghton report? That was before he came to the House. A Labour Government set that report in motion and a Labour Government implemented its recommendations in full. They also set up the Clegg commission, which was disbanded when the Conservatives came to power.

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that sort of approach to public sector bargaining is not something to which his party is committed now. Are Opposition Members prepared to indulge in independent pay reviews across the board in the public sector? If they do not give that commitment now, the commitment that they seek to give to the teachers is nothing more than a sham.
The effects of the dispute are to be found in the short and long terms. In the short term, although not for those affected by exams, there will be great difficulty. I am grateful to the teaching unions in Scotland for at least conceding that examinations will be allowed to proceed. If we are to find some ground on which to build during the debate, I hope that we can consider that as a sign that they will take into account the interests of their pupils. But the point is that, even for those who will be allowed to take examinations, there will always be the thought that the results that they achieve will be, in some way, inferior or second class.
The long-term fear is that this industrial disruption will prejudice the implementation of the Munn and Dunning proposals. They were broadly welcomed not only on both sides of the House, but throughout the teaching profession, and it is desperately sad that the innovative approach of Munn and Dunning could be prejudiced not only this year but in the long term.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only was the teaching profession anxious to implement the Munn and Dunning proposals, but the Government gave adequate assistance — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They were extremely expeditious about introducing finances adequate to implement the Munn and Dunning proposals.

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. If the long-term future of education in Scotland, as it is affected by Munn and Dunning, is to be prejudiced by such industrial action, it is regrettable.
As to the other aspects of the dispute, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for making clear his position during the dispute and for giving every undertaking that he can that the effects of industrial action will be consistently reviewed. He has said that he will take every action within his power to ensure that pupils at least are not affected. We are beginning to see some of the results of that undertaking. I am glad to know that the Scottish Examinations Board has allowed an extension of the arrangements for appeals along the same lines as it did during industrial disputes in 1975, 1979 and 1980. Although that is not an adequate solution to the problem, it is helpful as far as it goes. I was also pleased to know that the Scottish Universities Council on Entrance has said


that it will take into account the position of any candidates who might suffer as a result of the industrial action in Scottish schools.
I make no secret of the fact that they are simply temporary expedients to get over an appalling difficulty that has been recognised ever more widely by the parents of Scottish schoolchildren who are suffering the effects of the current action. If the dispute continues, as it seems set to do for some time at least, I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to ensure that children will not be made to suffer in their examination results because of the action taken by teachers.
I now turn to matters connected with my constituency. One school in my constituency — Aberdeen grammar school — has been especially hit by selective strike action. The children there are suffering much more hardship than many other children in Scotland. Indeed, they have regularly been denied education for three days a week, and it looks as though that will continue to be the case. It was no puzzle to me why Aberdeen grammar school was selected for strike action, although it was not made clear by the EIS. That school was chosen because it was in my constituency and because I did not support the teachers' claim for an independent pay review. The EIS fudged the issue. It would not admit that. The suggestion was—it would seem absurd to anyone with common sense — that the EIS had happened upon Aberdeen grammar school as part of a general programme of escalation — [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) laughs at that suggestion, which is patently absurd.
The EIS adhered to that view until Monday 11 March, when, at a parent-teacher association meeting at Aberdeen grammar school, the local field officer for the EIS, Mr. Stuart Topp, made it clear what the position was. He said clearly that the school had been selected with a view to pressurising me to change my views on the issue. Following the meeting of 11 March, I attended a meeting of a cross-section of parents from that parent-teacher association, at which much concern was expressed that such action was being taken. The correspondence that I have had from constituents since then has shown that they share that concern. The EIS has now clearly said that it is taking selective action in the constituencies of Conservative Back-Bench Members to pressurise them to change their minds on this issue.
I do not mind the fact that pressure has been brought upon me. I am prepared to listen to representations from any quarter, but when children in my constituency are made to suffer for my views that is nothing short of disgraceful.

Mr. Home Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not a Conservative Back-Bench Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Teachers have been on strike in my constituency, and my son was not in school today because the only teacher in the primary school that he attends in the Borders region, which is represented by a Liberal Member of Parliament, was on strike today. Will the hon. Gentleman stop giving us this humbug?

Mr. Malone: There seems to be some dispute about the hon. Gentleman's credentials. Some members of his party do not seem to want him. Sometimes I wonder whether we should not invite him to join the Conservative party. He

completely fails to recognise that Aberdeen grammar school was the first school in Scotland to be selected for strike action three days a week. That is a matter of simple record, which was admitted by the EIS. The position has become completely clear. The school was selected with only one purpose in mind. I view it as an attempt to intimidate me by holding hostage the future of children in my constituency in connection with the dispute. It is utterly reprehensible. It is political blackmail of the most despicable sort.
I say to the teachers who are taking action that they are losing support. They have not lost my support for the merits of their case—I would not be so mean-minded and petty as to do that—but they are losing support among parents, who resent them. The action has been deplored by many teachers, not only in Aberdeen but in Scotland as a whole. I should make it clear that such selective action, which is designed to intimidate me, is utterly ineffectual and will be of no use to them.
Teachers in Scotland should be trying to get as much support as they can from parents and from Conservative Members. To indulge in selective action does nothing for the merits of their case and nothing for the children whose interests they claim to have at heart. It turns logic on its head to say that they are prepared to indulge in the most damaging sort of selective action—that of three days a week—but that it is all in the interests of children and of Scottish education.

Mr. Maxton: That is right.

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman says that that is right, but the future in which I am interested is that of children who will be adversely affected in the short term. They are the worst affected by the strike.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Malone: I have given way enough in my speech. I am making a constituency point now, and I do not wish to give way again. The teachers do their cause no good.
The other part of the message that I wish to get across tonight is that Conservative Members are not blind to many of the intrinsic merits of the teachers' case. I cite as one example, in which I have every sympathy for teachers who write to me, the salary structure. That is inadequate in the long term, when we are trying to cope with the difficulties of falling school rolls and the impossibility of being able to secure promoted posts. This is why my right hon. Friend has suggested that we should negotiate a package of pay and conditions together, so that all these matters can be thoroughly investigated and sorted out, to the satisfaction of the teaching profession as a whole. [Interruption.] Labour Members may scoff, but why do we not give this opportunity a chance? What do the teachers have to lose by entering into the negotiating machinery? What problems do they see in presenting their case that they do not have now? That is nonsense, and they should go through the negotiations as quickly as possible.
The main interest of the House, of the teaching profession as a whole, of parents and of children is to bring this dispute to an end as rapidly as possible. The simple way to do that must be to go to the statutory joint negotiating committee. If, at the end of the day, a satisfactory deal is not negotiated, and paid for by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there is nothing to prevent the teachers from arguing their case point by point


in the country and the House and to hon. Members such as myself and my colleagues. We would have much more sympathy with what the teachers are doing if they behaved like that.
Members of the EIS who are particularly indulging in selective action such as this are losing support within their profession. Two teaching unions are suggesting that the statutory joint negotiating machinery should be used and explored. Why do EIS members not see that that is the way forward? If they are waiting because they think that there might be an element of political defeat in such an approach, and that Conservative Members would delight in rubbing their noses in the dirt if they were to resort to the machinery, nothing could be further from the truth. If they resorted to the statutory negotiating machinery, that would be a matter for rejoicing among Conservative Members and teachers would get much more support than they have so far been able to acquire.
There is no suggestion that I would be keen in any circumstances to gain any political victory from the teachers' resort to the statutory negotiating machinery. I hope that all hon. Members have the interests of school children in our constituencies much too close at heart for that. I encourage teachers throughout Scotland, particularly in my constituency, to abandon the damaging action that they are taking, and the attempts that they are making to try to intimidate me and other Conservative Members by such strike action. It will do them no good. We have one interest in common—the welfare of our schoolchildren. This method of selective strike action does nothing to help that.

Mr. George Robertson: This is a valuable opportunity, thanks to the luck of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), to debate this important issue, which, as he rightly says, concerns large numbers of people throughout Scotland. It concerns not just parents of children who are now in the education system but those who have a genuine interest in the education system.
I have a feeling that the Government are yet again running scared of this issue as they are of rates revaluation, which subject we will debate later. There are reports that the Secretary of State for Scotland is on television in Scotland this evening making noises that seem to show that some announcement will be made about rates. Perhaps he is trailing his coat in advance of the Scottish Conservative party conference on this issue, on which the Government are in serious trouble. If any announcement is to come, it will come against the background of assurances and categoric statements suggesting that the Government were resolute and would not back down in the face of pressure. However, the Government are clearly scared, are running, and will change their minds.
There is genuine concern in Scotland about what is happening in the education system. The teachers' dispute is only one feature in the landscape of the problems facing Scottish education. I do not dissent from a number of comments that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has made, but I do dissent from the conclusions at which he arrives and the partisan view of the dispute in schools that he takes.
Last night, I went to a well-attended meeting of the parent-teacher association of a number of schools in my constituency. Many parents expressed genuine concern

about a number of things going on in the education system, and in particular about the impact of the teachers' dispute on their children.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South made a particular point about the impact on children being educated in the constituencies of Conservative Members, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has pointed out, the dispute has had an impact across the board and as feeling strengthens the impact will increase. There is considerable and growing sympathy for the teachers' case and for the reasonable nature of the request that they are putting forward. There is support for the teachers among parents and pupils.
There is a crisis in Scottish education that is manifested not only by the teachers' pay. The frustration of teachers is occasioned not just by the level of their salary, although that is the particular problem that has been identified, but by a number of other factors. First, there are falling school rolls, which should have been the opportunity for expanding and improving the education services. Instead, because it coincides with savagely cut education resources in Scotland, the opportunities are being squandered, and the traumatic effects of the possibility of school closures are having an impact on the morale of parents and teachers.

Mr. Malone: Why, if there was that widespread concern about conditions and pay, did the EIS seek simply an independent review of pay without reference to conditions?

Mr. Robertson: I am talking about the dilemma that faces the whole of the Scottish education system, which has led to the frustration that has centralised itself on the particular issue of pay. If the hon. Gentleman will let me come to the end of my speech, he will find that the conclusion at which I arrive is that there was probably no alternative but to concentrate the eyes of the negotiators on a particular aspect.
On top of the problems associated with the Government's cut in resources has been the introduction of the 16 to 18 action plan and of Munn and Dunning, which has received widespread and general welcome among teachers, parents and other members of the community. However, the combination of all these factors, occurring at one and the same time — the development of a unique and original solution to try to deal with these things, as the consortia arrangements in the Strathclyde has been—has been to create almost unique pressures on members of the teaching profession.
Conservative Members should understand the nature of the feeling that exists among teachers today. This is not an ordinary industrial dispute. It is impossible for Conservative Members, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South did not even try to do this, to characterise this as a dispute in which revolutionary and agitating people of some militancy have generated support way beyond the boundaries of ordinary people in the profession.
What is significant to anybody who has talked to teachers and sought to understand what they are on about is the depth of feeling among the whole strata of the teaching profession. There is deep and genuine concern among the middle aged, middle class, middle minded teachers in schools who have come to the end of their tether and patience. They genuinely believe that there is


no alternative but to take the sort of industrial action that they are taking. That is the nature of the crisis that has been precipitated by the Government. Lack of understanding of the circumstances is creating the log-jam to which the hon. Member so slightingly referred.
Of course it was inevitable that one aspect of the dilemma would be picked on, despite the fact that within our schools there is a widespread drop in morale. It was natural and inevitable that there would be concentration upon pay. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends continually pour cold water upon the setting up of an independent review procedure as though what the teachers are asking for is the thin end of a wedge that will drive a coach and horses through the free collective bargaining procedures. To believe that free collective bargaining procedures can be followed under a Conservative Government is totally absurd. A most rigid form of incomes policy has been practised by this Government under the guise of allowing people to negotiate freely.
However, the Government have established, with the assistance of review procedures that were in force before they came to power, the principle that certain parts of the public sector should be removed from the pay bargaining arena. I do not believe that it is right to draw strict comparisons between the police service and other parts of the public sector. The police service is in a unique position. It was established by statute, and strike action is prohibited by law. Before the implementation of the Edmund-Davies report by the last Labour Government, no independent pay procedure was in force. There is now an independent pay procedure. Quite properly, in my view, the Government decided to take the pay of the police out of the normal bargaining procedures that apply in the public sector in order to remove from a key area of the public sector the ability to take widespread industrial action. The police were provided with a degree of protection that they had never previously enjoyed. However, the police are not the only ones in that position. This applies also to the armed forces and to the fire service, although the fire service is not prohibited by law from going on strike. The fire service has not denied itself the right to strike, but its members' pay is protected under the provisions introduced by the last Labour Government.
The important principle is that there are key public services that all of us wish to be removed from the normal warfare of industrial bargaining. If the fire service, the police and the armed forces fall into that category, we ought, according to the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, to remove our children from that battleground.

Mr. Malone: I did not understand that the teachers were asking for a permanent system for the independent review of their salaries. They are asking for nothing of the sort. If they were arguing for that, the hon. Gentleman's argument might have some relevance. However, his argument is worthless. That is not what the teachers want. They already have a statutory joint negotiating committee upon which they are well represented.

Mr. Robertson: That is a point which I am sure those who read Hansard tomorrow will read with considerable interest. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that if the teachers were arguing for a permanent review system he might be in favour of it. The principle has already been

conceded by the Government. If the Government believe in their own case, they ought to put it before an independent review body, before which the teachers could also put their case. Then somebody outside the narrow arena of those involved in the dispute would be able to come to a conclusion. Many children are being affected by the dispute. The vast majority of the members of the teaching profession in Scotland do not wish any harm to be done to children's education. They have a far deeper conviction about the need to protect children's education than many Conservative Members have or have ever had. Children are being caught in a vice between the understandable frustrations that teachers have experienced over the years and a Government who lack the courage to test their convictions and arguments in front of an independent review body. A reasonable demand is being made and it is reasonable for the people of Scotland to demand that it should be listened to by the Government.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I agree with the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that there is a wide area of common concern about this dispute. It encompasses worry about those children who are attending school. Whatever the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South may have said about a particular school, we all know that throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom schools have been affected by the teachers' dispute. It is common ground that we should seek to devise a method by which that dispute can be ended as quickly as possible. However, there is genuine disagreement about how the dispute can be ended.
The Government have been perversely blind about the development of this dispute. Anybody with any eyesight at all would have seen the attempts made by the teachers last year to negotiate a cash settlement with the Government. A settlement then would have helped to allay a considerable amount of the disquiet that was developing at grass roots level within the teaching profession. If a union ascertains by means of a ballot that over 80 per cent. of its members want industrial action to be taken, that is very significant. When such a union by a ballot obtains huge support for industrial action, and also has a tradition of trying to avoid taking industrial action whenever possible, the Government ought to take on board the fact that the reasons for this dispute are so deeply rooted that they must attempt to reach a settlement. To do so, the Government will need to throw overboard some of the obduracy of their approach.
There is quite obvious lack of trust between the Government and the teachers. On 25 March the Secretary of State for Education and Science gave me an answer which contained information relating to primary and secondary school teachers. It showed that, in constant terms, from the time of the Clegg review salaries had decreased in real terms. Teachers have seen an erosion of their standard of living and, something that worries them just as much, they feel that society lacks respect for their profession. If the Minister looks at the information, he will find that in 1980, for secondary school teachers, in constant terms, the value was £11,458, whereas the comparable level is now £10,365. That demonstrates the fall that has taken place.
It is equally interesting to note that the average pay in 1984 for a teacher in the secondary sector, including teachers who had been promoted, was £10,155. I am sure


that many hon. Members would be reluctant to accept a salary within that range. Therefore, the Government must answer the real worries of teachers, not just about their pay, but about their position in the league table for pay in three, four or five years' time. Their experience is that unless there is a substantial hitch-up from time to time their standards of pay will be compressed and hammered down. The Government have failed to realise that teachers have reached the end of their tether and can go no further.
The Government have changed their stance on a number of occasions and they have obscured the issue—probably for propaganda reasons —but they have not changed their cash stance. If the Government were to guarantee that the cash would be available to meet a negotiated settlement the teachers would consider their proposals, but they do not have much faith in a Government who have refused an independent pay review. The Government are saying that if terms are agreed with the teaching profession and the employers, they might not be willing to agree with them.
The Government suggest a two-stage settlement. The first is that the teachers should sign a blank cheque, abandon some conditions of service and enter into negotiations with the employers through the negotiating machinery. If a package were agreed between the teachers and the employers, that must meet with Government approval. The Government have carefully made it clear that they will not sanction any such agreement in advance. Having achieved the notional package, the teachers might find that it is shelved, as so many agreements have been in recent years.
If the Government want the teachers to negotiate and to avoid an independent pay review, they should come out from under their cloak of independence. They should accept that they are the paymasters and be prepared to negotiate direct with the teachers. The teachers would then know exactly where they stood. However, the Government are standing back and are not prepared to guarantee that they will meet in full any package which is agreed. In those circumstamces, the teachers would be rash to become involved.

Mr. Malone: Is the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) saying that he would be happy to accept direct negotiations between the teachers and the Government? If he is, it is an important modification of the position which he stated previously.

Mr. Wilson: I am saying that the teachers do not trust the Government to come up with the cash to sustain any package agreed as a result of negotiations. If the Government want the teachers to change their stance on the independent pay review, the Minister must say that he is prepared to meet the cash proposals resulting from that review.
The teachers would be ill advised to enter into negotiations with the Government on both pay and conditions at the same time. Pay and conditions must be considered separately. The urgent need is to settle the pay issue. Once that is settled, it would be appropriate for the Government or the employers to negotiate conditions. It is not desirable for the two issues to be conjoined.
One of the reasons for the teachers' lack of trust in the Government is that the Secretary of State has, within the Scottish budget, insufficient money to meet the pay claim that would be accepted under an independent review. By

refusing an independent pay review the Government have underlined that fear. The Secretary of State has already had to readjust his priorities on two occasions in the last financial year, and he would have to approach the Cabinet, well aware of the bounce-on effect on the Department of Education and Science, which also has a pay dispute on its hands. He would have to extract the money from the Treasury, and that is unlikely to be successful. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has sufficient clout within the Cabinet to obtain the money necessary to settle the dispute.
In the last few years, pay has declined in real terms. The adjusted curriculum following reports by Munn and Dunning has resulted in additional work for teachers, disciplinary problems because of the phasing out of corporal punishment and composite classes. Teachers can see the education system crumbling because of lack of care and attention.

Mrs. McCurley: Part of the problem is that teachers wish to negotiate pay and conditions. They are complaining about terms and conditions, so how can the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) divorce pay from conditions?

Mr. Wilson: I can easily divorce the two issues, because they are different. Pay has declined in real terms in the last few years. Teachers want that put right, and the Government must put it right if they want to sustain a good education system in Scotland and to provide proper education for our children. That is the primary issue.
Conditions can be more easily taken care of once the pay issue has been resolved. Teachers suspect that they will be asked to trade in many conditions of service, without any real advantage, simply because the Government refuse to make up their pay.
The blame for the dispute rests with the Government. If the Government had any political intelligence or sensitivity they would have seen the dispute approaching on the horizon. The Government have made many political blunders and errors in the last three or four months which have decimated their support and upset their supporters. They have made a mess of the teachers' dispute and caused problems for our children. The blame lies with them and they cannot escape it.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: I am a former member of the teaching profession, a former member of a local education committee and a representative in the House of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association. I am deeply saddened by the strike. I am extremely worried about the effect that it will have on educational prospects for thousands of youngsters. I am also worried about the effect that it will have on employment prospects for those youngsters.
When I heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) talk about the care and concern of the teaching profession tonight I was sickened, because only a couple of days ago I read an article which said that the EIS was planning to take the strike into 1986. That means not just one year but three years in which children's education is disrupted in terms of the national examination syllabus. Three separate sets of children will be disrupted.
The dispute is serious and tragic. I do not use the words "teaching profession" lightly. We must consider what


professionalism means. Scotland is the only country in the United Kingdom where the teaching profession can be called a profession. It has a professional body which governs the conduct of its members—rather like the General Medical Council. I think it is right that as a consequence the people of Scotland expect professional standards from their teachers.
Historically, if not traditionally, teachers are poorly paid. All servants of the state in vocational employment usually are. In the 1930s, teachers were asked, if not required, by the national Government in an economic crisis to take a cut in salaries. One of the reasons no doubt was that women dominated the profession in Scotland. That is probably why they were low paid. In the 1930s and before, women were historically forced to choose between their vocation and marriage, and primary education was dominated by women. It is only in recent years that the colleges of education have granted access to males in the primary section on certification courses.
In the 1970s, the influence of male teachers expanded, and I expect, with the profession then bread-winner dominated, that is why there has been a demand for an increase in salaries. I am certainly not opposed to that. As a former member of the profession, I remember with horror receiving my first pay cheque and realising how lowly paid I was and that the status of teacher must also be very lowly.
However, the Governent, and particularly the Secretary of State, have shown a considerable respect for the profession. Under the aegis of the Secretary of State, the profession has moved to an all-graduate intake. The professional now has to take a degree before he or she becomes a teacher or is part of a degree course.
The demand before the House is to bring the salaries of teachers back into line with the standards that prevailed in the mid-1970s. In the mid-1970s, possibly after the Clegg recommendations, teachers gained a little in standards of pay. Since then, it is not surprising that the little that they gained in the 1970s has been eroded because, upon receiving a reasonable pay increase, they were immediately hit by inflation under a Labour Government, indeed, under a Lib-Lab pact, which affected us all, and if a teacher could not survive with 27 per cent. inflation it is not surprising.
The present strike is the culmination of the frustration of the teaching profession. I have spoken to enough teachers to know that. Teachers want to be given finances commensurate with their status, and with that I agree wholeheartedly. However, today, on a picket line in Gourock outside a hotel, when I was with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, an unattractive and unacceptable section of the teaching profession reared its head: a thoroughly unkempt, untidy mob appeared spewing out invective, with a liberal helping of four-letter words. If I were the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, I would try to get their heads put in a bucket, because I would not like these people to represent my profession. I would attempt to hide them if I was trying to elicit sympathy from the public. It was a disgrace to the many hundreds of educated, cultivated, respectable and responsible people in the teaching profession who have

daily care and charge of our children. Many, in fact nearly all, of these teachers are highly dedicated and have a great love of children.
In the beginning of the strike, I believed that it did not have—

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

Mrs. McCurley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
In the beginning, I believed that the strike was not politically motivated. I believed, like others, that it was a natural response to a sorry situation.

Mr. Foulkes: May God bless!

Mrs. McCurley: I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak in the House. I did not realise that I was also to hear him at prayer. I think that it would be more appropriate if he took himself and his prayers elsewhere and, believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he needs all the prayers that he can get.
Not one Opposition Member who has spoken in the debate has condemned selective action but, by jove, if it happened to Opposition Members in another situation they would soon be bleating about it. They would probably have more influence—or perhaps not, I do not know—over the teaching profession. One of the reasons why Opposition Members are particularly thin on the ground tonight and are particularly silent on some aspects of the debate is that they have no sympathy with the teachers.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mrs. McCurley: One reason why they have no sympathy for the teachers is that some of the teachers on the general management committees are the biggest nuisances to some Opposition Members that one could possibly find.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.

Mrs. McCurley: Another matter that Opposition Members have failed to discuss in the debate is the irresponsible way in which the cadet branches of their party were responsible for a disgraceful scene in George square, Glasgow the other day, where they incited children of under 14 to go out on to the streets and riot, and they are proposing to do the same again. Using children is quite immoral, and the way in which the strike has been organised in certain constituencies against certain Conservative Members of Parliament is also immoral.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Lady seems to be drawing a distinction between certain members of the teaching profession, in particular those who were lobbying her and her hon. Friend today, and the vast majority of the profession who she says, as I underlined, are concerned and dedicated teachers. Will she bear in mind the fact that there was a ballot in the dispute, and that over 80 per cent. of the teachers, which must include the vast majority of the concerned, respectable, responsible members of the profession, felt it necessary to vote for strike action? How will she take that on board?

Mrs. McCurley: One reason was that the profession was in a white heat and ignored the prospect of a negotiated settlement. The offer was overridden by the


union. Perhaps the teachers thought that there was some advantage in going along with their union to press the point home to the Government. The Government have taken aboard the message about the poor pay of teachers and offered a way out, but the EIS has singularly failed to take it up.
My union — I have pleasure in representing the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association in the House—and other unions are as concerned as the EIS to obtain a solution. The problem is that the members of the EIS appear to be led by the nose by an unrepresentative bunch of deadheads, one of whom in 1961 was voted the most boring man at Glasgow university, and he went on to be voted the most boring man there in 1962 and 1963. For him the strike represents the zenith of his political career to date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] There are many ways to skin a cat. That member of the Educational Institute of Scotland has chosen a way that will serve to furnish him with the ultimate patronage of a safe Labour parliamentary seat, or perhaps even a higher and greater honour in another House. But he does not seem to be concerned about the future of his members.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has convinced me on many occasions that he is prepared to negotiate with the teachers. There is a flaw in the independent pay review body argument. It is that if somebody outwith the profession—not understanding the nuances involved—struck a rate that the Government could not accept because it was miles above average pay settlements, how would a settlement then be possible? There would be an impasse. The independent pay review body idea has been presented, not only to the profession but to the general public, as a seductively simple-sounding answer.
I want teachers to be paid a salary commensurate with their status. They have said that they now have a more complex job. Negotiations could prove that. People in other professions have obtained negotiated settlements by proving what they had been claiming. The teachers could do the same. I would prefer the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee to be in a position to negotiate terms and conditions. I say that in the belief that the cause for which the teachers are fighting is just and that they could prove it to the Government and public alike.
This is the opportunity for the teachers to prove their claim that they have a more complex and exacting job. Nor should we forget that they have constant in-service training, which occupies more of their time than used to be the case. If the position was presented properly to the teachers by their union's leadership, the teachers would accept it.
As for the bone fide status of the Secretary of State in this too emotive situation, it must be spelled out unequivocally to the majority of teachers in the EIS that the intransigence of their leaders is leading to an NUM-like disaster. The Secretary of State's door is open for negotiations.
For the sake of the future of the children of Scotland and the profession in general, this strike must end soon. If we took the so-called party politics out of the strike, it would end soon. I urge Opposition Members to accept that if the teachers are led up the same path as Arthur Scargill led his miners, the same will happen to them as is happening now to Scargill.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I regarded the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) as a sad effort. She seemed to be endeavouring to be like the Prime Minister. Such an attitude does not help the situation that we are discussing. The strike has not been caused, nor is it being prolonged, by party politics. If the hon. Lady believes that it is, she is mistaken. It is the result of a large number of teachers believing that they have a genuine grievance and being committed to their cause. It is not a conspiracy involving the Labour party, the Socialist Workers party or anyone else. It is based upon the commitment of a very large number of teachers. That is the truth of the matter.
I am anxious that some progress should be made in the dispute. I accept that no one would argue that disruption in schools is welcome. No one wants it. The only question that we can consider productively is why it has occurred. We can then see whether there are ways of making progress. Disruption will harm teachers and pupils in the long run, and it will also harm parents. No one would argue on that point.
I do not think that anyone would argue about the basic cause. There has been a severe slippage in teachers' pay over the last few years. Anyone who looks around his own contemporaries and considers the position of those who are teachers and those who have gone into comparable professions will realise that the teachers have done badly. Despite the big rise that was given at the time of Houghton and the boost as a result of Clegg, if I were a teacher who had been teaching in a secondary school in Scotland for eight years and was earning £8,000, I would have considerable problems with my mortgage and family expenses.
That problem has been compounded by the fact that teachers have had to respond, as they were willing and anxious to do, to the Munn and Dunning reforms to the 16 to 18 action plan. They had to cope with that professional challenge at a time when the personal resources which they had to deploy were inadequate and when funding for the education sector was declining.
I do not want to rehearse the arguments in the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday, when we considered what had happened to education finance, but if we compare 1984–85 with 1985–86, we see that there will be a drop in cash terms from £1,763 million to £1,696 million. In real terms, that is substantial. There are counter arguments about declining pupil rolls. No doubt we could argue for many an hour and many a day, and probably will, but if we consider the projections for the next three years to 1987–88, we see that an increase of only £7 million on a budget which stood at £1·7 billion means that in real terms there will be considerable difficulties. The repeated message from Conservative politicians is that there can be more pay for teachers, but that will mean fewer teachers and an increasingly swift deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio. That is one of the reasons why there has been so much discontent.
What are we to do about it, and how can we make progress? The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde made one useful suggestion. To her credit, it puts her out on a limb almost in comparison with her colleagues. As I understood what she said, she believes that the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee should get on with the job and should be able to arrange a settlement.


I took that from her remarks, but I may have been wrong. She went on to imply that when it had reached agreement and negotiated a settlement, that should be it, and it should be implemented. If the Government were prepared to say that—of course, the Government have places on the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee—that would be an enormous incentive to start the kind of negotiations which the Government say they want but which they have done very little positively to encourage.
The Government have more or less said to the teachers, "Go to the joint negotiating committee, negotiate with the employers' side and reach an agreement, but we give no guarantee that we will consider the result favourably. If you come up with something that we regard as a good buy for us, we may consider trying to find additional resources." There is nothing more than a rather dismissive suggestion which in the context of the way in which the dispute has been conducted by the Secretary of State has fairly been interpreted as an invitation to negotiate a settlement which will bring about a substantial deterioration in the conditions of work and which will attract little additional cash from the Secretary of State.
If the negotiating committee, with the Secretary of State's representatives, could reach an agreement, the Secretary of State should indicate his intention of considering it. I do not suggest that he should give a cast-iron guarantee that he would honour it all. That would be asking a lot, because he would not know what would be in it. If he would make genuine, favourable noises about trying to reach a settlement, rather than the luke warn, discouraging noises that we have heard, that would be helpful.
I shall give an example to the Under-Secretary of State, who is looking puzzled. During the last Scottish Question Time I asked the Secretary of State whether the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee could come up with not just a formula which would buy extra money by handing over terms and conditions of employment, but a package which included an improvement in conditions. The right hon. Gentleman said that I had raised an important point, but the best that he could manage was to say that he was neutral at that stage. That is typical of what has happened.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there is much to be said for going for the Scottish joint negotiating procedure. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) took a similar line. If the only objection to going through that procedure is the fear that the Secretary of State might not fulfil what came out of it, the time to kick, scream and shout and perhaps even take disruptive action would be after that procedure was followed. Surely disruptive action at this stage cannot be right.

Mr. Dewar: The teachers want an independent pay review, and I have a great deal of sympathy for that aim. The Secretary of State has said that it is impossible. I am trying to take a reasonably conciliatory approach —judging by the speeches of Conservative Members, that has not been a mark of this debate so far—to ascertain whether we can make progress and find common ground.
If the Secretary of State is genuine in saying that we should use the established negotiating position—I take it that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) agrees—the right hon. Gentleman should do

something positive to encourage that. The EIS executive split 13:13 on such a proposal. The Scottish national council of the EIS was summoned to meet on the following Monday. Clearly, there was a possibility at that stage that the EIS would follow that road and watch what happened.
What happened was that there was extraordinary disarray among ministerial ranks, with displays of different lines, approaches and degrees of softness and hardness. Ultimately, a ridiculous series of demands were put out at that crucial time by the Secretary of State, demanding that schools should open at unusual times, that subsidy should be given to private tuition, and so on. I could only interpret that as an attempt to set up a series of standards whereby it could be alleged that local authorities were failing to do their duty, thus enabling the powers under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to be used. Those powers allow the Secretary of State to take action against local authorities for failing to carry out their duty as education authorities.
I am trying to find some rationale in the actions of a Government who are trying to tempt teachers to move from an independent pay review towards genuine negotiation. The Government's effort was amazingly maladroit, and that is the most charitable thing that I can say about it. Our message is that we believe that the teachers have a valid pay claim. That is self-evident on examining the facts. The teachers should have an independent pay review. If there is to be an entrenched struggle—none of us wants this—and if the Government are genuinely to put an offer on the table, the offer must be put forward in a spirit that is attractive to the teachers so that they can consider it in the context of the harsh reality of the industrial dispute.
The Secretary of State has shown a hardening of attitude at all the vital moments, and the offer of which he boasted has turned out to be extraordinarily unattractive to the teachers whose interest he is trying to engage. The offer is not as attractive as Conservative Members try to make it sound.
I would be more impressed if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) were to say that he believes that a substantial pay increase should emerge from the negotiations. If the hon. Gentleman says, for example, that we cannot have an independent pay review, is he saying that the 12 per cent. increase for which teachers in England are asking is reasonable? Is the hon. Gentleman saying, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde said, that the joint negotiating committee agreement should be honoured? Those are ways in which the deadlock could be broken if the Government are to be obstinate and take a stand against an independent pay review.

Mrs. McCurley: The hon. Gentleman is going soft.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady has been shouting that I am going soft on this issue. I am not soft. I am genuinely interested in ensuring that progress is made. Until now, progress has been obstructed because of the obstinacy of Ministers. If we are to have an opening and turn from an entrenched civil war, which will disrupt our schools over a long period, there must be a much more positive and welcoming approach and recognition of the essential difficulties faced by teachers. If we had such an approach from Ministers, we would perhaps have the kind of progress that the Opposition want.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) on his good fortune in obtaining first place in the ballot and on choosing as his subject an issue which all hon. Members recognise as being of major concern to pupils and parents and, indeed, to the population of Scotland in general. That concern has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties. I recognise that the concern of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is genuine and that he was endeavouring to make a constructive speech.
Time is rather limited and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that it is simply not possible for me in this debate to respond to all the points that have been raised. This debate focuses on the effects of the action. The dispute itself has been discussed previously and the Secretary of State set out the Government's position very clearly in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, who expressed his sympathy for the teachers, and to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who talked of the strong feelings of teachers, that it is precisely because we are sympathetic and appreciate those feelings that we suggested that the SJNC conduct a substantive review of pay and conditions of service. I must emphasise that the SJNC has a statutory responsibility for both areas, has conducted no such review in the past and has the expertise. That review could have taken place at any time, certainly since the Secretary of State pointed to the possibility. The SJNC could have completed its work by now. There could have been a settlement by now.
To those who say that the Government have been obstinate or unreasonable. I must point out that we emphasised again and again that the methods adopted by the SJNC for such a review were a matter for the SJNC, and that if it wanted separate working parties, that was acceptable to the Government.
In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about a particular method of approach, we indicated that that would have been acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I apologise to the hon. Member, but I have only five or six minutes left.
I must emphasise that the Secretary of State's offer remains open. This is an offer which has been made to no other group of public sector employees—the offer of considering a review and re-ordering expenditure priorities within existing plans if an attractive package is brought forward from the SJNC. But, of course, that offer becomes more difficult as time passes because decisions are made about expenditure.
It is important that we realise and appreciate the precise position adopted at this crucial stage in the dispute by the various parties. I spelt out the Government's position. The employers, the local authorities—and I must say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I did not think from his speech that he thought that the employers really existed in this situation—accept that a rational dialogue within the SJNC on both pay and conditions is the best way forward. They put forward a particular formulation for that. That was acceptable to the Government as a way forward.
Opposition Members have talked in general terms about the teachers' unions, but it is a fact that two of the unions — the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), and the Professional Association of Teachers — have accepted and said publicly that it now makes sense to negotiate in this way. I understand that the position of the fourth union, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers is that negotiations should now start in the normal way on the 1985 pay round.
It is against that background that the Educational Institute of Scotland is continuing to maintain—as my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde emphasised to the House—that the strikes will go on next year and beyond. That is a no hope position, which the Head Teachers Association of Scotland was reported in the weekend press as describing as
the EIS's bleak inflexibility in refusing to discuss conditions of service".
I emphasise that the employers have always wanted a link between pay and conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South particularly mentioned the targeting of his constituency. The EIS has been open about its targeting of Conservative-held constituencies. That is a disgraceful tactic. It makes the dispute unique. Selected schools in the constituencies of Ministers and Back Benchers have been subjected to a sustained pattern of strike action. Some schools in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been hit for three days a week for up to eight weeks each. That is a totally unfair and vindictive method of making a point, which harms people just because they happen to live in particular constituencies. This tactic of victimisation is unprecedented. To my knowledge, no trade union either in Britain or elsewhere has ever used the strike weapon to attack those who live in particular constituencies. The implications are most serious. I agree that such a tactic is an affront to democracy.
The campaign is cheap to operate, but I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde when she said that the strike was losing the EIS public sympathy. As a nation, we do not like unfairness on such a scale, and the unfairness of the EIS action has been widely acknowledged. The Head Teachers Association of Scotland yesterday described targeting as indefensible. Even the EIS itself has accepted that targeting is unfair. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South when he said that this form of action can and will achieve nothing. It is entirely counterproductive. We do not yield to blackmail. The right way is reasoned negotiation.
Strike action and disruption has spread on an intermittent basis throughout Scotland. It does not have the same effect as sustained strike action. The EIS has also struck directly at this year's SCE examinations and, as has been said, it has attempted to cripple curricular reform.
The Government are doing everything possible to counter the effects of the teachers' dispute, particularly to minimise the difficulties for pupils in examination years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South emphasised. We are also doing everything possible in relation to considering the appropriate future for the standard grade, and in pointing out local authorities'


obligations. As the House knows, we have been asked to explore action under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
In conclusion, I must say to the House that the management and two of the unions involved are prepared to—
In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you agree that in a debate on such an important subject as this, which arouses considerable interest and concern throughout Scotland, such an issue cannot be fully discussed when a party representing one quarter of the electorate in Scotland has not had an opportunity to contribute. In view of that, I ask whether you will use your discretion in future to allow the issue to be debated in full, for example if an application is made for an Adjournment debate on this subject by myself or one of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) had better try his luck.
The debate has lasted for an hour and a half, and, although I have only just taken my place, I note that only four Back Benchers were called during that hour and a half. As the longest Front Bench speech lasted for only 11 minutes, I conclude that some of the Back Benchers must have been rather greedy.

Orders of the Day — Arts (Funding)

Mr. Francis Maude: I am sorry that my time will trample upon the tender sensitivity of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
On the last occasion when I spoke in a debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill, I rose to my feet at about 3.30 am. I am delighted by the fact that today I am starting to speak only three or four hours after most people have finished work and gone home.
This debate is to be about public funding of the arts. It may be helpful if I set out at the outset the basis of my arguments. I am in favour of the arts, but opposed to direct Government subsidy of the arts. I am not moved especially by the idea of saving Government expenditure, although I am not indifferent to that consideration in a number of other respects. I believe that direct Government subsidy has a malign effect upon the arts and that only when we move away from it will we witness a real regeneration in the arts in this country.
I know that we shall hear some drearily predictable remarks from the Opposition about Tory Philistinism. I do not wish to parade any credentials that I may have in terms of being an art lover, a theatre-goer or an opera-goer. Since 9 June 1983 my opportunities to attend the theatre, the opera and so on have been somewhat reduced, but I do when I can.
This debate takes place at a time when a much wider debate is in progress in the country about how the Government should treat the arts. There have been loud cries about crisis and disaster in the arts. No superlatives have been too far over the top for some of the protagonists. At times, one might have thought that a battle was taking place.
What are the dimensions of the so-called crisis or disaster in the arts? My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has set out in another place the amount of public money devoted to the arts. In 1985–86 it will be £272 million. That is a real increase of 18 per cent. since the Government came to office, and this year's increase is above the rate of inflation. A further £250 million is spent on broadcasting — as a subsidy to the arts in broadcasting. That is not direct public spending, but nearly every other country would include that figure as public spending on the arts. In total, therefore, about £500 million is spent on subsidising the arts in this country.
Furthermore, the arts now receive more in Government subsidy than in voluntary contributions from individuals. Among voluntary contributions, I of course include box office receipts. That peculiar situation should give rise to deep unease about the state of the business. It means that people paying income tax at about one third of average earnings are subsidising the pleasures of those who, by and large, are in much higher income brackets. That should be a source of deep worry, especially to the class warriors in the Opposition. I shall be interested to hear what they have to say about that.
During the past 10 years there has been a rebirth of sponsorship of the arts. It used to be called patronage, and came from individuals. In the rebirth, the patronage comes principally from companies, so we are now required to call it sponsorship. The attitude of the arts establishment towards it is ambivalent to say the least. In some sections it is downright hostile. Private money is sometimes


regarded as tainted money—the proceeds of capitalism—which must somehow detract from the sanctity of the artistic endeavour. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which that attitutude prevails in the arts establishment. It is thoroughly dangerous and has had an enormously bad effect on how the arts establishment is run.
My feelings about the malign effects of public subsidy of the arts was summed up by one of our most distinguished contemporary novelists, Mr. Kingsley Amis, when he wrote to The Times on 21 February as follows:
Subsidy damages art by tending to foster irresponsibility, showiness, cliquism and self-indulgence in the artist. At the same time the public's power to choose what art it wants, by financial pressure on the artist, is dangerously weakened. And whatever might be said about public taste it is better than the taste of the people the subsidised artist is likely to set out to please or impress: critics, colleagues, friends, experts, bureaucrats.
That sums up in a masterly way the malign effects of direct subsidy of the arts. The consequence of 40 years of increasing art subsidy has been that the arts have become introverted. They have yielded to the temptation to insulate themselves from their audience and communities. That is understandable. When the principal source of money is the Government, the arts lobby and establishment increasingly turns in on itself as it becomes the corridors of power within which that money is dispersed. That is unsatisfactory.
Another of the malign effects is that subsidy leads to the imposition of taste on the public—by committees and drama panels. It is unsatisfactory that the decision about which theatre should receive money is made by a drama panel. The matter should be decided by those who have the money to give. Have we had a significantly better arts scene since 1945, when the Arts Council was created?

Mr. Toby Jessel: Yes.

Mr. Maude: Will the years 1945 to 1985 be seen by posterity as a golden age of the arts in Britain? We have an artistic heritage which started somewhat before 1945, and it will continue beyond 1985, no matter what the extent of the subsidy that we give.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the arts have always been subsidised in one form or another, whether by royal patronage or individuals? Because business and the landed gentry have become so few and far between, the state has been prepared to help. Surely that is the same as has always happened.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my argument. We should encourage sponsorship by individuals and by companies to replace direct involuntary subsidy by taxpayers. I do not see there being a net gain to the Treasury at the end of the exercise. I see the direct subsidy being reduced at the same rate as that at which tax incentives take effect and increase direct sponsorship of the arts.
I know the argument against sponsorship. It is said there would be sponsorship only of enterprises which are safe, cautious and establishment. Many people were exercised about the pile of bricks at the Tate. It did not exercise me. I did not see the bricks, but I have seen other piles of bricks and I did not understand the point. However, I do not dispute that that may have been a genuine artistic activity. From such experiments,

genuinely worthwhile artistic enterprises can and do emerge. However, I wonder whether it is right for such experiments to be subsidised by the involuntary contributions of taxpayers. The sort of outcry that that type of exhibit generates is likely to make it much more difficult to sustain public subsidy in the long run, to lead to a clamping down, and to a much more cautious attitude by the arts lobby.
The other aspect of subsidy which interests me is the relationship that develops between the arts establishment and the Government. It was rather uncomfortable at the beginning when the arts lobby wheedled the Government for money. In the 1960s it became a comfortable relationship — some people would say much too comfortable—because the Government provided plenty of money for the arts, and the public did not fit into the equation. Now, wheedling has given way to an arrogant assumption by the arts establishment that if they call themselves artists they have an automatic call on the public's involuntary contributions. That is unacceptable.
One of the most strident exponents of that arrogance has been Sir Peter Hall. During the past few weeks we have witnessed that increasingly. He has resorted to ruthless blackmail, threatened to close the whole of the National theatre if he does not get his way, and put in great anxiety the 100 people whose jobs depend on the Cottesloe theatre continuing in existence.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Nonsense.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not seen the article in The Sunday Times of 17 February, which flowed directly from Sir Peter's remarks. He said that if the Greater London council carried out its threat to withdraw its annual grant, he would close the theatre, and that the reason why it was so difficult for him to manage was that the building cost a lot to run. He said:
the National's budget has been distorted by the building's £2·8 million running costs.
Whose fault is that? He was a member of the building committee when the theatre was being planned, was responsible for much of the outfitting of it, and must bear his share of the responsibility. Everyone else must work with the buildings that they have. Why should the National theatre be exempt from that?
A consequence of the arrogance in the arts establishment has been its tendency to build gigantic grandiose palaces, some would say, to indulge its vanity. If, in the fullness of time, it comes to regret that because the costs are more than it thought, my sympathy is lacking. I await the day when the Royal Shakespeare Company regrets its grandiose expansion into the Barbican. It will not be long before we hear complaints about the expensive costs of running it.
The National theatre has a total income of about £14·4 million, of which more than half comes in direct public subsidy. That is not a bad deal. In every base year except one it has increased ahead of inflation. I do not wish to make too much complaint about Sir Peter. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts said in a recent debate in another place that we should have a plurality of revenue for the arts. Sir Peter is a good example of that. On top of his salary as a part-time director of the National theatre, he is director of productions at Glyndebourne and has been a producer and director at Bayreuth. I make no complaint about that. He might be thought to be an embodiment of the virtues of entrepreneurial Britain,


seizing opportunities and advancing himself. Many would say that it is splendid stuff, but it tends to make one a little less than sympathetic when he continues his pontificating humbug about the so-called dismantling of the subsidised theatre. He would do well for his sake, as much as for the sake of the cause that he espouses, if he left the public platform, for which he is frankly unsuitable, and returned to the theatre, of which he is an adornment.
One is forced to ask: is there a need for direct subsidy for the theatre to continue? We must ask whether there is a need for subsidies of more than 50 per cent. The Everyman theatre in Liverpool manages to do business in a deprived area on a much smaller subsidy. The Royal Exchange theatre in Manchester, which also has a much smaller subsidy, produces experimental, avant garde and extremely fine works.

Mr. Mark Fisher: When has the hon. Gentleman been there?

Mr. Maude: I have been there several times and have seen many good productions.
The west end theatres have survived without subsidy successfully for many years. When we debate this subject, many people say that the subsidised theatre is essential because it brings tourists to the country and is a great money-earner. Of course, that is right. It generates revenue, but the unsubsidised west end theatres generate just as much revenue. Indeed, they generate more revenue because they do not have the original public subsidy to begin with. Some argue that the west end theatre is fertilised by productions from the subsidised theatre. Of course, that is right. The argument is that if we cut off subsidised theatre, we cut off that fertilisation. I do not accept that, because the west end theatre has a product to sell. If it cannot get new and good quality productions from the subsidised sector, it will develop those productions from elsewhere. It has something to sell, and it must have products. I have no doubt that the reduction of the subsidy to theatres would have no bad effect on the ability of west end theatres to continue in business.
What of other theatres which can survive without subsidy? For example, Glyndebourne survives completely without subsidy, except for a small subsidy for its touring operation. It has one or two new productions every festival, which compares favourably with the heavily subsidised Covent Garden and the Coliseum. The Chichester festival is also completely unsubsidised. It is successful, and is never shy of putting on new productions which test the frontiers of the arts. In recent years there has been an enormous growth in privately run, specialised museums, which is a development of sponsorship and of commerciality in the arts.
As a replacement for direct subsidy, I should like to see tax incentives to encourage individuals and companies to increase their sponsorship of the arts. This has increased from virtually nothing 10 years ago to quite a substantial proportion. However, the proportion of private sponsorship to public subsidy in Great Britain is almost exactly the reverse of the situation in the United States. In the United States it is roughly 10 to one, but in this country it is about one to 10. This happens in the United States because tax incentives are offered.
The Select Committee on Education and the Arts suggested concessions on private sponsorship three years

ago. Eventually, in January last year, the Government produced their response to that suggestion. Effectively, they said that this could not be done and should not be done. The reasons are fairly sketchily set out, but they are worth looking at. They raised a number of interesting points. The Government said:
To exempt business companies from tax on a percentage of their profits on donations to the arts would be a concession that it would be difficult and inequitable to confine to the arts.
That is nonsense. In the United States it is done perfectly successfully. As for how difficult it would be to justify confining it to the arts, that is a matter of pragmatism. It is acceptable to raise money to use as tax concessions to act as a catalyst to encourage certain desirable activities. This may not be necessary in the long-term, but it is necessary in the short term to develop this activity.
The Government's answer went on to say:
Moreover, the gain to the arts would not necessarily be in respect of a wide range of deserving cases, while the loss of revenue would mean substantial falls in the substantial sums within the Government's direct control.
That is not the robust voice of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts. That is the authentic voice of the arts establishment, which sums up in a sentence all that is worst about the system of direct subsidy to the arts.
The gain to the arts
would not necessarily be in respect of a wide range of deserving cases"—
Who is to decide that? Is it to be the drama panel of the Arts Council? What a poor fist it has made of that in the past. Why should companies not decide which should be deserving cases, or the audiences? Are we to assume that the drama panel of the Arts Council, the committee sitting isolated from the public, is a better judge of what is a deserving case than the public? That is an intolerably arrogant attitude.
The Government's reply said:
the loss of revenue would mean substantial falls in the sums within the Government's direct control.
If that is the result, good, so much the better. We want to see much more control over the way in which money goes to the arts in the hands of companies which can make decisions and of the public who take decisions to go and fill seats to see performances.
The argument set out sketchingly in the paper put out by the Office of Arts and Libraries does not meet the case. It has dismissed sponsorship lightly, but this matter would repay much closer consideration. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary winds up the debate he will hold out some hope that the Government will reconsider this matter as the only long-term solution to this problem.
The argument is that sponsorship will always go to the safe and cautious projects, but that has not been shown to be the case. Initially it was so, and was bound to be, but it is an activity that is developing. As it becomes more and more ingrained in society, and into the business community that it is a good thing to do to sponsor the arts, sponsorship will become more and more adventurous. There are a number of encouraging examples of business sponsoring adventurous projects. For example, BP gives substantial subsidy to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, which is not a particularly cautious or unadventurous project. It is good to see a big establishment, a multinational company, going in for that. IBM sponsors the Scottish Museum of Modern Art. Again, that is a good development. The award scheme run by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and the Sunday


Telegraph singles out imaginative and adventurous schemes. There is a growing tendency for sponsorship to move away from safe and cautious art, which will always predominate. If there are signs that private sponsorship is moving into more adventurous areas, that must be welcomed.
Direct subsidy of the arts is not the only aspect that worries me. The Treasury accepts works of art and property in lieu of tax. Parliament imposes capital transfer tax, thus forcing people to sell their properties to pay the tax, in lieu of which the Government accept works of art for the nation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) will make representations to the Treasury about the malign effect of this tax on the arts generally. The redistributive effect of capital transfer tax is negligible, its yield is slight, its collection cost is heavy, but its indirect effect upon the arts is considerable. Abolition of capital transfer tax would not only discourage the export of works of art and reduce Government intervention, but would open the way for wider patronage of the arts by individuals. There would then be a return to the occasionally eccentric, occasionally dotty patronage of the wilder types of artistic endeavour that took place in the past. It would be better if such patronage came from private individuals rather than from the public purse.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider favourably the introduction of tax concessions for sponsorship of the arts and that eventually the abolition of capital transfer tax will revolutionise the funding of the arts. Eventually I should like taxes to be so low that the public could exercise their own choice about how they spend their money. That would be much more desirable than the extraction of involuntary contributions from taxpayers, which amount to one third of average earnings, thus forcing them to subsidise against their will those who are usually much better off. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this point.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I had intended to be brief and I still intend to be brief. I want to deal specifically with funding, but it would be quite wrong if I did not say a word or two about the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, South (Mr. Maude). It is unbelievable that anybody in Britain can say that the period from the mid-1940s onwards has been the worst ever period for British art, given the background of Olivier, Richardson, Ashcroft, Gielgud, Redgrave, and, secondly, that there should be a substitution for public funding which is accountable to a very large number of people. The alternative is private sponsorship.
The hon. Member put forward two arguments for private sponsorship. The first was that it would be chosen by individuals. The mind boggles at the the thought of Rupert Murdoch in charge of the choice of works of art in this country. That is what it would amount to. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that private sponsorship has proved to be adventurous because it has put up money for the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
As the man who started the Edinburgh Fringe, I am pleased about that, but in the initial years no such money was forthcoming for our productions. No money is being given for the present production of the play about the miners, "The Garden of England". When that comes, we might talk.
Such nonsense can be equalled only by the Minister for the Arts in his infamous speech in the House of Lords

when he said that there had been an 18 per cent. increase in real terms in arts funding since the Government came to office. The funding and the figures are important. The Minister for the Arts claimed that the arts had received an 18 per cent. increase since 1978–79. He claimed that on television, in an argument with Peter Hall and others, and in the House of Lords. I assume that he intended to cover the Tory period in office.
The year 1978–79 was a curious year to choose. It was the last year of the Labour Government and therefore refers to a Labour programme. I am curious about why the Minister for the Arts should have sought some spurious credit. The answer is even more curious. In that year there was a computer strike and £6 million from the Labour programme was transferred to the following year's programme. About 5 per cent. of the total was therefore paid in the following year, thus producing an artificially low figure for 1978–79 and an equally high jump in the following year. That means that the 18 per cent. claim can be reduced by more than one third in real terms. The claim is nonsense, but it reveals creative accounting by an Arts Minister who was once a Treasury Minister. The claim is strange because, according to the Minister for the Arts, public expenditure is, by definition, evil. The Government say that all public spending is bad and that it must be cut. It is strange that they should take credit for a Labour Government spending programme.
Within one month of the general election in 1979, the Government started to cut money for the arts. Within a month they cut the programme which they inherited from us by 2 per cent. Well over 10 per cent. of that 18 per cent. was spent in a single year—in 1982–83, the year before the election. The 18 per cent. figure is the combined result of our actions, of the computer strike and of the 1983 election.
The Government's first action after that general election was again to cut the arts budget. To be fair, that did not take place within a month. It took two or three months. In October the Government cut the arts programme on which they fought the election Two elections were successfully over, and two cuts faced the arts world. So much for Government claims about total spending. The claim is nonsense.
Two matters are important. We are dealing with a tiny—some would say mean—overall budget for the arts, libraries and museums. Therefore, any single major item can immediately and adversely affect others. For example, this coming year alone necessary expenditure on the British Library of over £7 million will take half the apparent planned increase in cash terms.
Many museums and galleries such as the National gallery and the Victoria and Albert museum are in difficulties. The increased cost of necessary repairs to such museums and galleries will be three times the rate of inflation in the coming year. That single aspect accounts for over 10 per cent. of the total Department budget.
I deal next with the immediate issue, to which the Minister for the Arts referred in scathing terms as the crisis in the arts. Any claimed increase in real terms for Arts Council spending in the Tory period of office suffers from the same spurious and creative accountancy as the overall budget for the Office of Arts and Libraries.
In 1983–84, after the pre-election mini-boom in arts funding, the old cycle was repeated—a cut in the arts. Then came the attempt to demonstrate that the national institutions were all profligate and inefficient spenders.


The Government tried to do this through the Priestley report, and it boomeranged, because they were wrong. Those institutions turned out to be more efficient than most of the capitalist organisations that the Minister has been praising. This error cost £3·5 million. The Government were determined that somebody else should pay for it. Instead of the Government paying for it, it was paid for by cutting what was made available to the rest of the arts. It turned out that the arts would have to pay for this.
Priestley became a camouflage. Whether from pique or from another burst of creative accountancy, the Government used Priestley to make a savage cut of 4 per cent. in real terms in the provision for the rest of theatre and music in Britain by claiming credit for fulfilling Priestley. With the inclusion of the extra amount in Priestley, there was still an overall cut. That in itself is a measure of what the arts have had to face. The effect only two years ago was a cut of 4 per cent. in real terms in the rest of the performing arts in Britain. It is a devastating figure for the arts world to sustain. The factor of over £4 million a year is applicable to last year, this year and next year.
As to the talk of an increase of £5 million, four fifths is coming out because of the pledge in Priestley which has been borne not by the Government directly but by the rest of the arts. Thus there is the continuing factor of the drop of 4 per cent. because Priestley has continued into 1984–85, when total art funding is virtually frozen in real terms. That is the reason for the crisis and why it is correct for Sir Peter Hall, Melvin Bragg, others and myself to say that there is a genuine crisis in the arts.
In the coming year, there is to be a new factor. On top of Priestley, there is "The Glory of the Garden". This developed a strategy for devolution of the arts, but without the funds to carry through the strategy. Three million pounds was allocated for the strategy and its development this year, when the total grant in real terms has been cut, even taking account of the Priestley money. The real problem is that the development will cost £3 million, which has not been provided, and it must therefore come from the existing art world.
It is not the Government who are paying for "The Glory of the Garden", but the rest of the arts. It is a repeat of the Priestley sleight of hand. To that £3 million must be added another £1 million of costs that have come out of the Arts Council budget because of the £600,000 properly allocated to Scotland to compensate for the loss of local authority funding following the implementation by the Government of the Stoddart report. Another £400,000 is to come out of arts expenditure to prepare for the running of the South Bank by the Arts Council following yet another piece of political pique and stupidity by the Government in seeking to abolish the Greater London council.
Taking these factors into consideration for last year, this year and next year, we are witnessing a cut in real terms of about 5 per cent. for the majority of the existing performing arts. That is serious, but the story does not end there—the worst is yet to come.
Great play has been made—correctly—of the value of the plurality of funding in the arts. The main source of funding in the arts other than central Government—indeed, greater than central Government — is local authorities. They gave 50 times as much money to the arts in 1981–82 as private sources. In 1984–85 they gave

between 15 and 20 times as much. They are the main bulwark of support for the arts today and without them the arts would collapse.
We now know the depth of the crisis and the reason for the fear. In the same period about which the Conservatives boast—from 1978–79 to the present time—there has been a collapse of over 8·5 per cent. in local authority finance. The 5 per cent., in effective terms, from central Government, plus the 8 per cent. from local authority funding, proves the point.
We are only now beginning to appreciate the effects of cutting, capping and abolition. The Scottish experience shows how changes of this kind can drastically affect support funding for the arts. In total public spending there has been a real decrease in financial terms and a major decrease in effective terms.
Each day my post contains letters from companies throughout Britain which are in increasingly desperate straits. Today I received a letter from the director of a major music festival outlining anxieties about the festival. The British Council is worried about the general effects on the arts. Another letter tells me of a major British city that is anxious about the consequences of the Government's policy on library provision. From a group of young unemployed actors seeking to mount a new company comes a letter telling me about their fears. I suspect that many hon. Members with an interest in the arts receive similar letters.
We shall reverse the trend. We find it shameful that Britain should be at the bottom of the league in Europe in provision for the arts. The very existence of our national theatre is threatened. More important, we see being threatened the flourishing work that was done in the last decade or more by local communities, ethnic groups and local authorities. What has occurred has been a national scandal, and the trend must be halted and reversed before deeper damage is done.
With that in mind, I give a pledge. Bearing in mind the present level of central Government funding through the Arts Council, my intention is to double that amount within the first 12 months of taking office. That will be done either through direct central Government funding or through additional earmarked support to local authorities. I stress the latter point, because we recognise—I regret to have to say this—that the present leadership of the Arts Council has failed. Where they should have fought, they have surrendered. Where they should have spoken as advocates for the arts, they have acted as apologists for the Government.
We recognise, further, that if the principle of devolution of the arts—ill-thought out in "The Glory of the Garden"—is to be rescued and made effective, it must be through the strengthening of the regional and local control of funding. We shall therefore begin immediately on taking office the necessary structural changes in the funding of the arts to bring that about.
Next, I pledge that if the philosophy of the Conservatives in the arts is extended to charging for museums, galleries and so on, we shall reverse that process too, as we had to do on a previous occasion.
This is a philistine as well as a monetarist Government. Indeed, they are a philistine Government because they are monetarist. They cannot understand art in any terms but cash. They fail to understand the deeper value of art because they see it only in cash terms. We value the arts because we are committed to the arts. We recognise the


importance of public expenditure in relation to the regeneration of the economy as a whole, but we, who are concerned to change the world, recognise that the engine of change can be through the arts.
Shelley described poets as the unacknowledged legislators of mankind. We accept that. Marx once said:
The Bourgeoisie erect statues to the great writers of the past. If they had ever read their books, they would have burnt them.
That is the difference between the two sides of the House. I am glad that we have had this opportunity—although it is no substitute for a major debate — to discuss the matter. We promise as quickly as possible to reverse the disastrous effects of this philistine Government on the arts in Britain.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I listened to the first two speakers in the debate with total amazement. Government support for the arts should take three forms — subsidy by the Arts Council, tax relief and the encouragement of business sponsorship. These are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) suggested, to be seen as alternatives; they can and should be complementary. We need all three.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) pretended that Government support for the arts has been cut. That is not so. The budget for the arts and libraries increased from £124 million in 1978–79, when his party went out of office, to £272 million for 1985–86, the year that is about to begin. That is a rise in real terms of 18 per cent. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. The increase for next year will be 5·8 per cent. I wish it could be more still. Anyway, it is slightly more than inflation. In London £16 million is to be made available to the Arts Council to make up for the abolition of the Greater London Council.
The arts are enormously important because of the way in which they enrich and enlarge people's lives and the enjoyment they give. Even if the arts are seen merely from an economic aspect, they are of tremendous value to Britain. The arts, the heritage and the monarchy, to which the heritage is linked, comprise the main attraction which draws people to Britain. Foreigners come here not for our weather but to see our old towns and cities, our historic houses, churches and cathedrals, our art galleries and museums, the royal family and everything to do with it, our theatres, concerts, opera and ballet.
The chairman of the Arts Council, Sir William Rees-Mogg, in a remarkable address earlier this month, said:
The arts are to British tourism what the sun is to Spain … As British manufacturing declines, there must be investment in the expansion of invisible earnings; and the arts are an essential part of any rational policy for such investment.
He also said:
The state also has important benefits in tourist revenue".
In a pamphlet published recently entitled "New Jobs from Pleasure" my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) wrote:
Tourism is Britain's biggest growth industry. According to the English Tourist Board it employs about 1,300,000 people, has a turnover of £10,000 million and generated £4,150 million in foreign exchange earnings last year. It is creating more new jobs than any other industry—about 50,000 a year. Tourism is an unsung hero of the British economy.
Later he wrote:
Fine art and drama continue to help make London one of the world's major tourist centres.

Indeed, London is the arts capital of the world; and there is a great deal else in the arts in other parts of the country.
We will be crazy if we do not continue to build on our strength. Last year 12 million visitors came to this country. The number is increasing. It could increase faster still. The arts need a little more pump priming by the Government. The budget of the Arts Council, which is the main instrument for support of the arts, was £100 million last year. That is only one thirteen hundredth part of public expenditure.

Mr. Maude: Does my hon. Friend accept that the subsidy, which exceeds other forms of revenue, is pump priming? It is a massive amount. It is more than private individuals give to the arts, including what is spent on actually going to see things.

Mr. Jessel: I do not accept that it is more than people pay for going to see things. My hon. Friend himself said that, apart from the National theatre, the London theatre, which is very buoyant, does not receive any subsidy.
Indeed, I could not agree with what he said in the main theme of his speech. He spoke in favour of business sponsorship. Everyone on this side of the House is in favour of business sponsorship of the arts. It has increased dramatically. It has multiplied tenfold over the last 12 years due to the excellent work of the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts. Business sponsorship is now £15 million a year, and there is scope for further increases. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) has made a special study of this matter. It is not realistic to say that business sponsorship could replace the subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North has paid no attention to the amounts involved — £15 million from business sponsorship compared with £100 million from the Arts Council. The amount given by business cannot begin to reach the level of subsidy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who I hope will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, has made a special study of the tax aspect. I believe that people should be allowed tax relief for support of the arts just as they can, through deeds of covenant, obtain tax relief for their support of charities. This is done in the United States. I agree on this point with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North. I hope that that theme will be developed during this debate.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: It is inevitable that, because of electoral exigencies, Alliance Members tend to make speeches only about matters on which they are party spokesmen. It is a great pleasure to be granted this minor indulgence and to speak personally.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) on introducing this subject. I had thought that I would make a different speech, but, having heard the hon. Gentleman, I thought that it would be worth while to put the opposite case. The hon. Gentleman and I come from different backgrounds—that is the fault of neither of us. I suspect that my experience of the arts differs from his. I fumbled my way, trying to find an outlet for art through my background and faced difficulties. No encouragement was given. I was not able to look at the kaleidoscope of different opportunities and naturally find a way to take advantage of them.
Certain aspects of the arts are seen as legitimate, proper and valuable, though there is a strange dichotomy in the arts in class terms. For example, in the north, Gilbert and Sullivan is acceptable across the spectrum, but, by and large, grand opera is not; the brass band tradition is acceptable, but the ordinary concert hall is not necessarily acceptable. Apart from one occasion when I was given tickets to what were called the industrial concerts of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, I had never been to an orchestral concert in my life before coming to London some years later.
The same is true of other aspects of the arts. Jazz is acceptable in certain cultures, but playing in string quartets is not necessarily acceptable. There is a strange artificial division based on one's experience. Artificial boundaries are put around the arts, and they are detrimental and disturbing.
Some of our cities have taken on board the prospect of widening people's experience of the arts. Leeds has done a great deal to develop music education in schools. But unless children have something to go on to on leaving school, outlets and participation in music making will not be broadened. In a city such as mine most families cannot afford to purchase the instruments that their children will play. The instruments are provided at school, and the children do not have further access to them.
There is a type of pyramid in the arts. Hundreds of young people are helped — brilliantly at times — to express themselves. The pyramid begins to narrow as those with no great talent fall by the wayside. Suddenly, when the children leave school, the pyramid virtually disappears. Economic constraints and the problems faced by people—even those with talent—in continuing to use a musical instrument mean that few people are involved in the arts.
What worries me is that those young people often do not feel frustrated by it. They accept it as normal that once they have left school that aspect of their life disappears, and they do not bother to continue with it. It is a tremendous shame that we do not understand what happens in whole areas of our urban society, and for all I know in our suburban and rural societies.
One of the things that was crucial to my own experience of the arts was being a member of the Leeds city council when the Leeds Grand theatre and opera house was threatened with closure. The city, under a Conservative administration—I give Sir Frank Marshall, now Lord Marshall, full credit—stepped in and bought that theatre from the private owners to make sure that it continued. I was appointed, as a token Liberal representative from my own group, a director of that theatre. From that day, the whole panoply of what was possible in the arts was open to me because I was a part of that board.
Soon after that came the proposal to establish an opera company in Leeds—the Opera North company. Again, that was a tremendous seminal point in the experience of many people in Leeds. It was not that we needed Opera North suddenly to come and provide 10, 11 or 12 weeks of opera in the city. We could buy that in; we alwys had had Welsh national opera, Scottish national opera, English national opera and many other. We had even had the Dortmund opera company from our twin city.
The crucial difference was that, instead of just having week after week of opera which was well patronised, we

had 60 or 70 musicians and 40 singers resident in the city. Suddenly they became part of the musical life of that city, straight out into the schools, the clubs, the pubs, the highways and byways. They taught and took on pupils. The staff producers gave assistance to the youth opera in the city. Suddenly the whole thing began to pick up and become much more vibrant because we had the opera company in the city.
Standing back from that and observing what happened was a tremendous experience. We suddenly realised that, by establishing an opera company in a city out of nowhere it was possible to create a tremendous new interest in the arts. It was always there; it was not something that had been absent; but it had never been catalysed, drawn out as it was thanks to the skill of the professional.
I have come to believe very deeply that some aspect of the arts can enliven every individual in our society. It may not be the same thing. For some it is the visual arts, for some it is music, for others it may be opera.
In my own city, one thing that has burgeoned amazingly in the last 10 years or so is dance. There was a time when only one ballet company could hope to fill the Grand theatre in Leeds. Then a second came and began to do very good business. The third company, the Ballet Rambert, could barely fill the Leeds playhouse at one time. Now it is packing the Grand theatre. Now we have the London Contemporary Dance packing the theatre.
Why is that? Is it because there has suddenly been a great interest in dance? No. It is because some brilliant people within the schools in the city have developed the skills that were always there. We have the Phoenix dance company, a group of black youngsters from the depths of Harehills in Leeds, who have now become one of the great star supported groups from the Arts Council. They also travel around the country. That is because the excellence of some small groups has developed interest in dance across the whole city, and the theatre is full for that as well.
The effect of drama and the theatre is not confined to the few. It is very interesting to look at the correlation between anti-social behaviour, violence and vandalism in Leeds and the expression that comes with the arts and see the change that makes. The school in the city that has the greatest involvement in theatre and drama is situated on a council estate in my constituency, simply because there was a headmaster there with the skill to draw from those students the expression so crucial to drama. That school now houses the drama course for the skilled students in the whole city. It is not by accident that things happen like that. It is because somebody has a vision and understands how to draw that expression from those people.
However, sad to say, if one looks at the audience profile for the major centres of excellence of the arts in Leeds, one does not find it broadly based across the whole city. The leafy suburbs of Leeds are where the audience is massively concentrated. That is not because it is only people in those areas who have the ability to appreciate different aspects of the arts; far from it. If only we could get people to those centres—to the playhouse, to the Grand theatre, to see the opera company and dance—I am sure that they would appreciate the arts as well.
The problem that I have with the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North is that he does not really understand the problem of the psychological and transport barriers — the physical barriers — that prevent people from


believing that the arts are for them. If one could overcome that problem, people could appreciate, understand and participate in the arts.
In many parts of the country we have community arts that take the arts out of the council estate and the downtown areas, but they will flourish only in so far as there are also centres of excellence. Unless there is also that professional focal point in the city as well as the dedicated people who are taking the arts out to the community, it is not possible to have the whole range of opinion, expression and participation in the arts that is so crucial.

Mr. Maude: What the hon. Gentleman is saying does not go against what I was arguing. What I do not understand is why direct public subsidy is necessary to meet the desirable end that he is talking about. It is not necessary.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I shall start with a point of agreement. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in his wish to assist private sponsorship by tax concessions. I do not dissent from that. The ambivalence of the tax laws at the moment is a great problem and inhibition of sponsorship; for example, whether an advertisement in a programme is tax deductible depends on the precise wording. That is ludicrous.
However, I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I do not believe that business sponsorship will ever do this on a sufficient scale. Unless there is a local authority, an arts council or even a Government who understand that the arts have to belong to everybody or they will belong to nobody, one will not get the support that is necessary. I do not believe for a moment that business, marginal as much of it is in profit terms, will ever be able to pick up the bill that the Arts Council picks up. It will never be able to pick up the bill that the local authorities pick up. The breadth of the vision for the arts is crucial. If business sponsorship can add to that, and business can sponsor a production or performance, or a visit by a company from abroad, that is tremendous. I do not want to prevent that, but it is the workaday support for the broadening of arts provision that is crucial.
In the public service, whether local or national, we do not regard it as odd when we assist those who have particular handicaps to overcome them and express themselves. We do not regard it as odd in the educational system to assist those who have a sight impediment to overcome it. We do not believe it odd to assist those who have a speech defect to overcome it. We do not believe it strange for the public services to be able to assist those who have a hearing defect.
With the arts, we are saying that people who do not realise it have such defects—they cannot see what is there before them, because it is not part and parcel of their ordinary life. They cannot hear what is there and available to them because no one grabs them and takes them to a concert. They cannot express themselves because no one takes them to the place where they can take part in drama. If we help people with physical handicaps in ordinary life, why are we saying that that should not happen in the arts? In no sense can the arts be an afterthought in society. At times like the present, when we have an economic crisis and a social crisis, one needs the arts more than ever.
Without the arts, no other human value can express what people need and feel, and how they relate to their community and neighbours. The arts enliven them and are

part and parcel of our humanity. Unless we can support them publicly, as well as through other methods, I do not believe that they will survive. In that event, such communities will not be healthy and able to express themselves and see their humanity as crucial to our survival rather than as part of a housing estate or an economic machine that grinds them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful to the House if I announce that I understand that the Minister would like to rise at 10.45 pm and that the debate ends at 10.55 pm. If hon. Members bear that in mind, perhaps all of those who wish to be called will be.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: In debating Government funding of the arts, discussion is inevitably about two inter-related but distinct topics—economics and our artistic heritage. Professor John Galbraith brought the two together with special relevance when he said in his "Economics and the Arts":
Hard economic truth even against art, must prevail".

Overlying both topics, perhaps unfortunately but inevitably, is politics. The slogan of the Government's opponents is that there is a crisis in arts funding, but it tends as much to obscure as to falsify reality. Such current sloganising leads to the current controversy — private funding versus public funding.
I shall not detain the House with the respective arguments, because of lack of time, but the conclusion is usually plural funding. Such a conclusion often fails fully to appreciate the inescapable importance of government in ensuring the best opportunities for the private sector to play its invaluable role, be it through tax advantages, matching grants, advice or other forms of stimulation. To guarantee a bigger part for the private sector, which it must be right to seek, means an even more starring performance from the Government in creating the conditions that I have mentioned. Nevertheless, they deserve great credit for the successes that they have already achieved.
Having started with a quotation from the world of economics, I should like to end with one from the realm of the arts. Sir Ian Hunter, as president of the Royal Society of Arts, said in "Arts in a Changing Society":
All has to be related to the economic facts of life.
Such realism, when applied to the Government's funding of the arts, is surely the key for the politician seeking the philosopher's stone.

Mr. Tony Banks: One of the good things that have come out of the recent row about Arts Council funding has been the explosion of the myth that the Arts Council is non-political or that there is in reality something called an arms-length principle.
During arts questions on Monday, the Minister with responsibility for the arts said that the Arts Council was non-political. That was a typically cynical comment. Tory politicians are good at completely politicising an institution and then declaring it to be non-political. In respect of the Arts Council, that cover has been well and truly blown. I do not see how the Government can say that they defend the impartiality of the Arts Council when they appoint a Tory monetarist as its chairman and an ex-Tory councillor as its secretary-general. It is well known that the


Prime Minister's dictum for public appointments is, "Is he one of ours?" That dictum was clearly employed in making those two senior appointments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, arts funding in Britain is a disgrace. It is the lowest in Europe, with the exception of Ireland. When making comparisons, we should compare spending on arms. About £18 billion is spent on arms each year—roughly £321 per head. The figure for the overall total of national and local funding for the arts is about £12 per head of the population. Clearly, the Government prefer guns to culture.
Lord Gowrie as Minister for the Arts, when trying to make a lame excuse for the cut in arts funding—there has been a cut in the past three years—compared arts expenditure with that on education and social services, and asked us to make a choice. If we compare arts expenditure with arms expenditure, the choice for a civilised person is easy.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) spoke at length about why he preferred private expenditure to public expenditure on the arts. Labour Members take the opposite view. The state and local authorities have replaced private patronage, which is perfectly fit and proper. Finance from the public purse is disinterested finance and less partial than private finance. It is far more likely to be innovative. Business sponsorship is small—between £14 million and £15 million. There are no accurate statistics, but that is an intelligent guess. It is minute compared with the general level of both local and national public funding.
I do not want our artistic tastes to be determined by the sums that Barclays Bank, Trusthouse Forte, Unilever or the wealthy put into the arts. I do not wish to see the corporate state emerging with big private companies becoming the arbiters of artistic taste. Conservative Members may want us to move nearer to the United States example, but in America military bands receive more funding than the arts from national central funding.
Sir William Rees-Mogg said that the arts provide a large number of jobs. With the £100 million that the Arts Council receives, it finances £250 million of arts turnover. That in turn provides 25,000 jobs, which produce £60 million in national insurance and taxes, and £15 million in value added tax receipts for the Treasury. The Treasury does well out of the moderate sums that it puts into the arts through central funding. Therefore, the Government compound philistinism with economic illiteracy by not providing more generous support for the arts.
I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, and look forward to the next Labour Government at least doubling national support for the arts. A Labour Government must suitably reward local authorities on a pound for pound basis for the sums spent on the arts. It is about time that the Arts Council was scrapped. I would like to see the next Labour Government examine ways of democratising the arts grants machinery. I certainly wish to see them set up a Department of State responsible for the arts, leisure and all cultural activities, including broadcasting, the press and sport. We should look to the cultural industries for economic growth.
One day we shall look back upon these times of national penny-pinching of the arts as unbelievable and inexcusable, but until then we cannot call ourselves truly civilised.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The lamentations and jeremiads that we are hearing from the subsidised arts world illustrate well the frustrations and public antagonisms to which our present system of funding the arts is bound to give rise. We should in my view embark on a strategy of moving progressively from a system of grants to one of tax relief akin to the American system.
The system of an aggregate grant disbursed at the discretion of the Arts Council made sense so long as we proceeded on two assumptions: first, that economic growth would finance ever-rising levels of public expenditure; and, secondly, that the way to improve the quality of life was by enlightened mediation by public bodies. Neither proposition any longer commands widespread assent.
I do not argue for an instant for rapid demolition of the subsidy system. The effect of that would be catastrophic. But we should proceed with determination in the direction that I have indicated. We could proceed by phasing one system in as the other is phased out, but there would be difficulties in that, including the uncertainties of time scale and of which institutions would be likely to attract support. It might be better to say that at some time, perhpas two years ahead, we would move to a different basis of funding, which would give time and opportunity for those seeking patronage to find it on new principles.
If we moved towards replacing state grants by a system of tax relief, a number of advantages would accrue.
First, the discussion of the totality of arts funding would be depoliticised, and arts funding would be removed from the vagaries of central and, especially, local government.
Secondly, the dominant characteristic of the system would become the direct link between private patrons and the arts. In this way, we would encourage a more authentic and creative interaction between artists and the public than we do by treating the arts as a small province of the welfare state.
Thirdly, I do not for one moment suppose that we would see an end to lobbying, but the clients of patronage would buzz round a much greater variety of pots, and they would probably buzz less angrily.
Fourthly, more funds would be available for the arts. The American experience, even taking account of the greater wealth of the United States of America, shows the willingness of individuals and corporations to respond to tax incentives to support the arts. We can draw much encouragement also from the great success of the growth of business sponsorship in Britain.
The fifth reason why we should prefer the system that I have suggested is that it would mean lower taxation and an alleviation of the pressure on the Government for higher public expenditure. Of course, the Treasury is suspicious of tax reliefs which it regards as tax expenditures, but I draw some tentative encouragement from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, when he announced the Green Paper on the reform of personal income tax:
We need to make sure that the reliefs we can afford are concentrated where they will do most good." — [Official Report, 19 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 794.]


By concentrating relief on support for the arts, as one among several candidates, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would do much good.
It is not my purpose to criticise the present leadership of the Arts Council. There are strong arguments for the strategy to achieve a fairer balance in public patronage, which Sir William Rees-Mogg is seeking to implement. The problem is that whatever policy the Arts Council embarks upon, it will be invidious and will give rise to cacophonous complaints so long as money is tight.
As a governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company, which receives support from the Arts Council, I should emphasise that I am speaking in a personal capacity. I would not wish to embarrass the company by associating it with my views on the changes that are necessary. It must live in its relationship with the Arts Council and the Government; on its behalf, I would say only that I regret very much that, while we have the present system, the Government have not honoured in full the Priestley recommendations which we understood they were committed to accept.
At the general election, the Conservative party manifesto included a commitment to
examine ways of using the tax system to encourage further growth in private support for the arts and heritage.
Against a background of genuine difficulties, both for a Government who wish to give good support to the arts, and for artists who look to state support, it is important that we should explore this line of thought virorously.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: In her first term of office, the Prime Minister announced that there would be no candle-end economies in the arts. There was great relief throughout the arts world that grocer-shop economies would not be applied to the arts. Unfortunately, that relief was short-lived because of the application of the Government's monetarist policies.
The warning signals could be seen when Lord Gowrie was appointed as Minister for the Arts, because he is not only the Government's spokesman on the arts, but holds a Treasury brief. Accordingly, he must face two ways at the same time. He is on record as saying:
I can in no way dissociate the arts from the Government's economic and fiscal policy. To do so would be damaging to other parts of the economy.
We know exactly where the Minister for the Arts stands. We in this House, cannot even question him directly on the Government's economic and fiscal policies, because he sits in the other place.
Last year, the Minister for the Arts defended the Government's cuts by saying:
I was at least able to protect them by restricting the cut to 1 per cent. — nasty, but nicer than 2 per cent. — [Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1983; Vol. 445, c. 766.]
And when she first came to power, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) spoke of no candle-end economies in the arts.
Recently the Minister also said:
The party is not over, but the limits of hospitality have been reached. From now on central Government funding will remain broadly level in real terms.
That statement shows that, while the noble Lord may be devoted to the arts, he appears to be more devoted to monetarism.
The Minister mentioned a party. What party does he mean. The paltry £105 million that the Government give the Arts Council could not be called a party. This can be

shown by the figures. Four years ago, Britain was spending £6 a head of public money on the arts. In the same year, West Germany spent £16 per head, and France spent £23 a head. Since then, the gap has widened. Frankfurt, with a population of 670,000 — the size of Leeds — gives a subsidy to the opera of £12 a head, twice what the Government gave the English National Opera. Berlin gives £17 million, Cologne £16 million, Munich £15 million, and Hamburg £15 million to the arts. France doubled the fund to its ministry of culture, in 1982 to £545 million, and in 1985, it will spend £778 million. That shows the generosity of France and Germany to the arts.
The arts are seething with discontent. There is open revolt among some of the beneficiaries of the Arts Council because they are being deprived of the funds that they need to fulfil their obligations to the communities that they serve. They feel that they are being betrayed by the Arts Council. As Sir Peter Hall said:
The Council has become an instrument of Government.
That first casualty has been the belief that the famous arms length principle is not working any more. It is felt that the Arts Council, like every other spender or distributor of public money, should conform to the Cabinet's monetarist diktat. I call on the Government to reconsider the cut in grant, and to give a supplementary grant large enough to prevent the closures that threaten to stop the quality that we have grown to accept, and to set up an inquiry into the system of Government relationships to the arts, which will result in a system with generosity, imagination and coherence.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I hope that I shall be forgiven if in my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) I say that there was a certain amount in his speech with which I did not agree. On the other hand, it set an interesting note for the debate, because for once we got to the heart of the argument about what the relationship between the state and the arts is supposed to be.
We have had the usual knockabout stuff about the increase. However, if it is unfair to take 1978–79 as the base, although it would seem reasonable to do so, we can take the next year, in which case we get an 11 per cent. increase in real terms, which is a major increase in the present climate, and compares pretty well with the 12 per cent. increase of the Labour Government.
The similarity is not between parties, but between who is in opposition and who is in government. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) made a typical Opposition pledge, namely that he would double Government funding for the arts in the first year, which was pretty good stuff. He may need to do so simply to keep up with inflation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that he disagreed with the speeches of both my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North and the hon. Member for Paisley, South, which was a good start, because so did I, I do not believe that the theory of The Economist, that one could wholly replace the role of the subsidised arts by tax allowance, takes into account one of the fundamental points.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is in a curious sort of alliance with my hon. Friend


the Member for Warwickshire, North, because he says that he wants people to vote for what is to be done for the arts. In real life we know that that means a committee run by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. However, if it were possible to invent a voting mechanism which was so sensitive that it enabled people to vote for what they wanted to be provided, I am not sure that it would be all that different from the kind of model envisaged by my hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire, North and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—that people should be able to vote with their money.
If they can be made to work, both systems are highly pluralist and both seem to me to suffer from the defect that was pointed out by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), with which I have great sympathy, namely, that we should face the fact that all decisions on the arts should not be devolved because of the teaching function. Teaching cannot be wholly devolved. Teaching involves bringing things to people which they may not know about. For that reason they will be unable to vote for them or buy them.
If one reads Neville Cardus's moving autobiography, one finds that he came from a background so poor as to be almost unimaginable today. He struggled into the titanic position that he held as the best writer on music and cricket in his day because he had the luck early in his life to meet people who taught him about the arts. That is what the hon. Member for Leeds, West and many Conservative and Opposition Members believe to be one of the essential functions of the state in its patronage of the arts. Its leadership function cannot be wholly devolved.
One cannot get out of it by saying that the democratic will, working in some mysterious way, will solve the problem, or that the market will solve the problem. Even if one could produce the Utopian democracy of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, which would end up with somebody telling us what we ought to believe in, or even if one could find the Utopian market, which never quite seems to come about because there is always some monopoly which interferes with the proper working of the market, there would still be a role for teaching. In old Tory language, there is a paternalist role to be played by the arts. In the language of the Opposition, that is a teaching role. I do not believe that that role should be shirked.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West unnecessarily ran down the north of England. Neville Cardus's book makes me think of the north of England. He referred to the brass bands of the north. Certainly there are brass bands in the north, but there was a time when the Hallé under Richter was the finest orchestra in the United Kingdom. That is a good example of municipal subsidy. There was no lack of support for that orchestra in the north of England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) brought us back to the economic realities, and we all thank him for doing so. All Governments have to struggle with the economic realities. I hope that I am not being too offensive when I say that I disagree also with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. I have heard some strange definitions of "art" — Clive Bell's definition of art as "significant form", Aristotle's definitions, and Housman saying that he could tell what was a good poem because the hair on the back of his neck stood up—but it does not do as a definition of art to say that it has something to do with the profit levels of the Grand Metropolitan Hotels group.
A society which says that it values its art because of tourism seems to me to be a society in decline. I hope that we never fall into making that mistake. Of course there are useful spin-offs, and of course people should make money out of them, and good luck to Sir Peter Hall if he makes money out of them, too, but to define the arts as objects of tourism would mean that we were in a sorry state. I believe that my hon. Friend was referring to the useful spin-offs, not to the heart of the problem. A healthy society has art as part of its soul, as part of the definition of its culture, not because it wants to attract tourists.
I can encourage the hon. Member for Leeds, West further, because teaching is important, not only to those with no money. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) looks threatening. We went to the same school—a school full of rich people. There was a need there to teach pupils about culture. It was by no means a Philistine school when we were there. I think that it had some effect upon him—perhaps neither entirely successful nor entirely unsuccessful.
The state has a role in leadership, in transmitting great things from one age to another and in bringing them to as many people as possible. All the voluntary sources available are also needed. There is no harm in that. We are talking not about tainted money but about money which is useful and which can be applied to great ends.

Orders of the Day — Rating Revaluation (Scotland)

Mr. George Foulkes: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the question of revaluation in Scotland. I am particularly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing three hours for this debate.
The issue shows up the Government's greatest ineptitude in Scotland. You, Mr. Speaker, are not involved in the revaluation, since you represent and live in an English constituency.
According to newspaper reports, it appears that only when the Secretary of State received his own revaluation notice for Gargunnock—his estate in Stirling not in Ayr—did he understand what was happening. The chairman of the Scottish Tories, Sir James Gould, was so astonished by his 33 per cent. increase that he was photographed brandishing his rate demand in George square in Glasgow. He described the increase as "appalling."
Sir James was not the only one who was appalled. Councillors were appalled. The Scotsman carried the headline
A Glasgow Tory attacks Younger".

The way events are moving, the headline could soon be "The Glasgow Tory attacks Younger."
According to The Scotsman
Councillor William Aitken … suddenly stunned the Labour ranks by embarking on a surprising attack on Mr. George Younger … He said the revaluation was at least badly handled and at worst a disgraceful decision.
That is from an increasingly lonely Scottish fellow in Glasgow. I hope that by quoting from The Scotsman I do not offend my good friends from the other Scottish newspapers.
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is not here, but he is normally one of the Government's most ardent supporters. He has often come gallantly to the Prime Minister's defence. Another article in The Scotsman states:
A Conservative MP last night accused the Government of 'betrayal' over rates rises and called on the Prime Minister to redeem the situation when she attends the Scottish Tory conference at Perth in May.
We also read that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), chairman of the Scottish Tory group in the House of Commons, is to lead a deputation to the Prime Minister on the issue, understandably bypassing the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in the Chamber, had to appear before a "Star Chamber" in his constituency. A miraculous decision was made. He was cleared, but the Government were found guilty. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was party to all this as a member of the Government, but no, the honourable Burgher for Eastwood apparently thinks differently. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who will have the pleasure of replying to the debate, no doubt knew a little more of what was happening in this revaluation. After all, he has one of the widest home ownerships in Scotland today.
On more sober reflection, after all the outrage from Conservative Members as well as councillors and ratepayers, given the reduction in rate poundage to offset the increased revaluation, is all this concern justified, is

this uproar justified? The answer is an unequivocal yes. The overall increase in Scotland's rate bill is estimated to be some 21 per cent. Individual domestic increases will be much more, some well over 40 per cent. I will give a prize—a very small one, of course—for the largest verified percentage increase. This 21 per cent. increase in Scotland compares with an overall estimated increase of 9 per cent. in domestic rates in England where no revaluation is taking place—indeed, it has not had a revaluation since 1973, while we are experiencing our second revaluation.
The Secretary of State and his cronies keep trying to pile the blame on allegedly profligate authorities. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and to divert attention from the real source of the problem. It is mischievous and malevolent. To eliminate the variable of authorities which may be spending over the Secretary of State's arbitrary guidelines, such as the variable is, let us take areas where region and district are within the Secretary of State's guidelines. There are 36 out of 65, as we have heard from the Secretary of State, Perth and Kinross notable among them. We note that Mrs. Rosemary Ferrand of Perth and Kinross, whom the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) knows well, said that her own council of Perth and Kinross
… had always been careful of its housekeeping and had always tried to keep within Government guidelines but though it had pruned spending to the bone it faced a penalty of £260,000 in claw-back".
The hon. Member for Tayside, North knows that this is one authority — and there are others in Dumfries, in Galloway and in Grampian—where region and district have kept within the Secretary of State's arbitrary guidelines. Thus we rule out the variable of the so-called profligate authorities.
In all these areas, there will be huge increases for the domestic ratepayer. There are two causes, both of which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Government, including the hon. Member for Eastwood. The first is the reduction in rate support grant. Less Government money to local authorities inevitably means that more must come from the rates to maintain spending and services at the same level. The second is revaluation where the switch in burden from the non-domestic to the domestic ratepayer without adequate cushioning for the domestic ratepayer causes additional hardship and cost. With respect, the £38·6 million added under protest—the Secretary of State admitted in a written reply that he had received 3,800 letters earlier this month—is a mere fleabite. To add insult to injury, the £38·5 million came from harmful cuts in other areas of Scottish Office budget expenditure, robbing already poor Peter to pay a poorer Paul. The uproar is understandable. The Secretary of State is not with us today. No doubt he is elsewhere in the House drowning his sorrows following the salutary lesson last Thursday from the electors of north Kyle, who used to be well represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie).

Mr. Bill Walker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss by-election results, perhaps he will comment on the result in the Tayside region last week, when the Conservatives retained the seat with a substantial majority.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friends have admitted that, on the basis of the present system in Scotland, the hon. Member for Tayside, North would be the only Tory in the


House representing Scotland. We give him credit for that. Nevertheless, in the north Hule by-election, regional councillor Tom Parish overturned a 1,500 Tory majority with an 11 per cent. swing from Conservative to Labour, and that in the Secretary of State's own constituency. If that swing were reflected throughout the constituency, it would be large enough to unseat the Secretary of State.
We appreciate that other factors were at work. For example, the Tory candidate was not the cleverest choice. Also, there was the teachers' dispute, and tonight we heard about the martyrs of Man college. We saw them on television, although schools other than Man were affected in the Secretary of State's constituency. Revaluation was the key issue, and the Secretary of State's standing in Ayr has never been lower than it is today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue with that argument, for if he looks at the average rate increase in Kyle and Carrick—and I suspect that this applies to some of his own constituents — he will find that the domestic rate increase is 5 per cent., level with inflation. How, on that basis, does he explain revaluation having such an effect?

Mr. Foulkes: That is not my information. Nor was that the information published in the Glasgow Herald. Nor will it be the information that the electors and ratepayers of north Kyle will get when they take their new valuation, multiply it by the rate poundage, work out what they are due to pay and compare it with what they paid last year. That is the test, that is what they did and that is why they voted Labour.

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Foulkes: I will not give way again. The Minister has the right of reply, and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
Hon. Members may rightly say that we should be looking for an alternative to the rating system. Regrettably, the panic and hysteria among Conservative Members has allowed some of the more sinister Right wing elements to preen and spread their feathers. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), opportunistic as ever, is no doubt away making an honest penny or two—

Mr. John Maxton: Doing his midnight laundry.

Mr. Foulkes: Quite possibly.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is upstairs in Committee dealing with the Transport Bill. He is trying to privatise the buses.

Mr. Foulkes: I cannot think of anywhere where I would rather have the hon. Member for Stirling than upstairs on the Transport Bill. He put forward the proposal of a poll tax which, he said, could be levied in different ways—on every adult, on every elector or on every person with an income. We understand that that proposal is being taken seriously, not just by the Secretary of State but by the Prime Minister. To rush into such a tax would be to go out of the frying pan into the fire. If rates are regressive and unfair, a poll tax would be doubly so. It would be much more regressive, with no account taken of

ability to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has pointed us in the direction of a local income tax. That deserves careful study. The onus is on the Government. Reform of the rating system was a clear Tory election pledge in 1974 and 1979. Tory councillors and MPs—the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) was notable amongst them—have been pressing the case for further consideration of rates reform. Of course, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is in a marginal constituency, so he would, would he not? They are rightly asking what has become of that Tory election pledge. Scottish Tory councillors consider that they are becoming an endangered species. As I said earlier, Scottish Tory MPs will be equally rare.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that at the last general election one in six of the Labour candidates lost their deposits. Would he like to take any odds that that is not likely to happen to at least as many next time?

Mr. Foulkes: I understand the hon. Member is talking about the United Kingdom.

Mr. Henderson: No, Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes: I will see the hon. Gentleman afterwards and take a bet on that. The other one was a prize. I will double it for the hon. Member for predicting the result in Fife, North-East, and it will not be a Tory retention.
What of the immediate rather than the long term disaster or debacle that faces the Tory Government? The Secretary of State should have stopped the revaluation. Is it too late to do so even now? I hope the Under-Secretary of State will give us an indication that it could still be stopped. If it is too late, however, the Government must make new money available, though not by robbing other spending areas in the Scottish Office, to provide a full cushion for domestic ratepayers. Nothing less will do.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He talked about opportunism, but he never misses an opportunity. He enlivens our proceedings as he enlivens the proceedings in Scotland. The House would be less fun if it were not for people like him. For him to suggest that a Conservative Member was an opportunist was rather like the kettle calling the pot black.
Revaluation is like blaming the wrong thing for the problems that we face. In Scotland for a long time those who have voted for expenditure have not been footing the bill. Many people who vote at local elections are not ratepayers. The information I have is that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) favours a form of local income tax. If that is so, he and I are in agreement.

Mr. Craigen: Am I not correct in thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took great pride last week in the fact that he was able to take many people out of the payment of income tax? I trust they will not lose their votes as a result.

Mr. Walker: That intervention is fascinating. It is typical of Socialism. Socialists want to spend, but they never want to pay. There could be a local income tax that would be fair. It would have to be used as an income tax


and not as a flat levy. I have no objection to those who can afford to do so having to pay. All I am saying is that those who spend and promote expenditure should make their contribution. Under the present rating system, that does not happen. The revaluation has not changed that iniquity.
I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will not suggest that I have a marginal seat. For many years I have believed that the only fair way in which to make people pay for locally provided services is a form of income tax. Scotland is unique in having Centre 1. Other facilities could and should be used. Private sector large computers are under-utilised in down time. Once again I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) shaking his head. He has no idea what I am talking about.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Walker: He has risen to the bait.

Mr. Maxton: The problem with local income tax—I agree that the Inland Revenue is beginning an experiment to solve the problem — is that large numbers of employees in Scotland do not pay their tax to centres in Scotland. An argument is consistently put forward in the assembly against using income tax. By the time there is a Labour Government after the next election, the Inland Revenue will have solved that problem.

Mr. Walker: We do not have to leave it to the hon. Gentleman to solve these problems. Of course I am aware that many people living and working in Scotland have employers from outside Scotland. Many of them are large companies operating cost and profit centres from computer bases south of the border. Every employer has to register every employee with the Department of Employment. Cross-fertilisation is not as difficult and horrendous today as it was five or 10 years ago. Some of the facilities are not in the public purse at the moment, but they are available and under-utilised. There are machines with the necessary capability and capacity; we only require the will.
I hope that people will not be put off because Centre 1 has a limited ability and because of the difficulties. I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State putting concrete decisions. I have not simply grabbed these proposals out of the sky. The facilities are there. We need only management and co-ordination.
Of course, Government Members comment on the problems created because of the activities over long periods of profligate authorities. Governments, whatever their colour, always introduce cruel and arbitrary measures when faced with having to contain public expenditure. One cannot deal equally with the problems. Governments bring in across-the-board measures.
I have never argued with some of the actions of the Labour Government when faced with certain difficulties, because that was the correct approach at that time. I have never criticised the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) for those actions, because they were right. The Labour Government introduced across-the-board measures with massive reductions in expenditure, so that authorities that began from low-spending bases—such as Perth and Kinross — and willingly acquiesced were disadvantaged compared with authorities that did not acquiesce in the way desired by the right hon. Member for

Govan. That meant that those authorities started from a higher spending base and retained that position as the years passed.
In 1979, when the Conservative party came to office, it introduced measures to curtail local government spending. Inevitably, the authorities that behaved were already in a weak position compared with the profligate authorities. No matter how much one tries, one cannot square that circle. The differential is too great. With the best of intentions, it will never be possible to make the present system fair to all authorities. Inevitably, the good authorities will be penalised more than the profligate ones.
I accept that the profligate authorities had grown accustomed to spending at a certain level, just as any spendthrift grows accustomed to living at a certain level. The adjustment for them had to be over a much longer period. The problem is that we do not have that length of time.
Revaluation is an attempt to spread the burden in a different and more acceptable way so that industry is not disadvantaged. We do not argue with that, because it is right that we look carefully at the way we tax jobs. This has done more than anything else in my judgment, to force employers to lay people off earlier than they should ever have done. Employers do not willingly lay off staff; they do so reluctantly, in my experience, and they do so because it is the one area in which they can act quickly. They can do little about their other expenditure but they can do quite a bit about the cost of staff, which is one of the largest cost elements, certainly for labour-intensive industries.
Consequently, it was inevitable that the rate support reductions and the transfer because of the present revaluation would produce ghastly problems and inequities. In my own constituency I have plenty of examples, but I am not going to bore the House with details because all of us can talk about ghastly examples in our own constituencies. All I will say is that the largest employer in north Tayside—one industry that has been showing more growth than others in recent years — is tourism, and that has been hard hit by the revaluation because it has hit the shopkeepers and hotels. In some instances, the increase in the rates to be paid is greater than the net profit realised in any one of the last five years. That can only mean more jobs lost, and no one can welcome that.
Therefore, I hope that Ministers are well aware of the mood in Scotland in favour of a real, positive change in the system. It is not promises we are looking for, but real plans, to be brought forward and implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who normally gives us a great deal of detail about his constituency, did not mention the increases which domestic ratepayers in the Tayside region will face in the forthcoming year. His own district has an increase of 24·6 per cent., Angus 23·8 per cent. and even the comparatively responsible authority of Dundee has an increase of 19·9 per cent. — rather lower, but a very considerable burden on the ratepayers none the less.
There has been a real sense of outrage in Scotland as these revaluation notices have come in. If ever a Minister was in a mess and thoroughly deserved to be, it is the


Secretary of State over revaluation. He was well warned about what was happening. It is not something that just came up and took him by surprise. If it did, he is even less informed about the realities of local government finance than some of us have considered him to be. He was well warned that there would be this kind of trouble in Scotland, but he took no effective action to deal with it.
Whatever the merits of revaluation, it cannot be sensible that there is a revaluation in Scotland this year when England has not had a revaluation since 1973. It simply does not make sense. It is impossible to explain this to the electors in Scotland. There is a considerable difference between 1978 and 1985. There had been only a five-year gap in 1978 between the revaluation in England and that in Scotland. There is now a 12-year gap. What is more, the revaluation in 1978, I am glad to say, reduced the burden on domestic ratepayers in Scotland. No one in Scotland can understand why the same Government can say that we can go 12 years without a revaluation in England, but that we must have a revaluation in Scotland now.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Millan: No, I do not think so. If my hon. Friend does not mind, I should like to finish this point.
At one time, the Government promised to abolish domestic rates. We knew several months ago that there would be considerable trouble. The argument was set out in the debate on the rate support grant on 24 January this year by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and some Back Benchers, but the Government refused to acknowledge the reality. The Secretary of State said that everything would be all right and the increase would be only 13 per cent. for domestic ratepayers, as if it were some great triumph, when he is trying to screw down public servants to wage increases of 3 and 4 per cent. We warned him that the rates increase for domestic ratepayers would be considerably higher than 13 per cent., and so it has turned out to be.
That need not have happened. The revaluation need not have happened. Even if the Government, for good reasons or bad, decided to go ahead with revaluation, when they saw the results that were coming out, there was no reason why domestic ratepayers should not have been effectively shielded from those considerable increases. In the original rate support grant settlement, the domestic element could have been considerably higher than it was. It has been slightly increased since, and I shall return to that matter. The Government could even have decided on a redistribution of the rating burden between the different categories and classes of ratepayers, with the balance between them remaining essentially the same as it had been before the revaluation. Incidentally, the Secretary of State toyed with that idea at one time and announced that that was the way in which he would proceed. However, none of those things happened.
We did not have an effective shielding of the domestic ratepayers, and the inevitable happened. The figures came out and showed that the average increase for domestic ratepayers in Scotland was to be not 13 per cent., but 27 per cent.—rather more than double what the Secretary of State had estimated. Horror of horrors, some of those substantial increases were happening in Tory areas —

again as we had forecast in the debate on 24 January—where district councils had done their best to keep within the guidelines sent out by the Secretary of State.
At first the Secretary of State was going to brazen it out. Sir James Gould traipsed down to London and was rebuffed. He was told that he was causing an unnecessary disturbance and that he should go away and think again. He went home to Scotland with his tail between his legs and apologised to the party in Scotland for causing that little upset. The Secretary of State was not able to brazen it out, because of the real sense of outrage in his own ranks and among ratepayers in Scotland.
We then had the Secretary of State coming to the House on a Friday—

Mr. Foulkes: A Thursday.

Mr. Millan: Indeed. It was before the Scottish Labour party conference, when the right hon. Gentleman hoped that nobody would be here. He said that he was going to produce an extra £38·5 million by way of domestic element. We are meant to be grateful for the fact that he has produced that, but it has only come off another part of the Scottish Office budget, which is already in straitened circumstances. Even with the £38·5 million, the increases are still on average 21 per cent. in Scotland, according to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' figures that have been published.
There is now talk of a review. We have had many such reviews before. It will go over the same old ground. There is nothing new in that. It will not find some magic solution to solve all the problems which we now face. A poll tax is being considered. I can say right away, speaking for myself and, I think, for my hon. Friends as well, that we are absolutely opposed to anything that is so bitterly and fundamentally regressive as a poll tax. We shall oppose any such idea. Of course local income tax is a possibility, but the idea that we can replace the complete rating system with that is nonsense—it is a non-starter. For many years I have been in favour of a local income tax, but it will not solve the problems.
The reality is that the rating system can work reasonably well, provided that it is not over-burdened, but it has been over-burdened by the deliberate actions of the Government. That is why we are in such a mess. Revaluation is simply the straw that has broken the camel's back. The whole behaviour of the Government since 1979 has caused the trouble that we now face. I hope that the ratepayers of Scotland understand that.
We have not been living in halcyon days in 1984–85. The domestic ratepayer in Scotland has been paying two and half times as much as in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government. He paid £132 then and has paid £328 in the year now ending. There will be an average rates bill of £397 in the coming year, despite the £38·5 million to which I have referred. The rate burden on the average domestic ratepayer in 1985–86 will be just over three times what it was in 1978–79.
The Government have deliberately taken the burden off themselves and put it on the backs of local ratepayers. They have reduced the rate of grant which they inherited of 68·5 per cent. to 56·6 per cent. for the forthcoming year. Indeed, in reality the figures will be lower than that because it is paid on inadequate and unrealistic figures.
I and my hon. Friends have consistently pointed out the problems in every rate support grant debate, and especially


in the debate on 24 January. According to the Government, local authorities over-budgeted by £114 million for the year about to end and are paying the penalty of £90 million. I warned the Secretary of State in explicit terms that there would be considerable over-budgeting in 1985–86, and that is what has happened. The so-called excess budgets stand at £90 million for 1985–86.
Before Conservative Members say that that simply illustrates the profligacy of local authorities, I must tell them that COSLA estimated — and the figures have never been denied — that if local authorities had standstill budgets in real terms, even using the Government's inflation figures—which, needless to say, are underestimated — they would require £101 million more in the current year just to stand still. If the figure is £90, they are not standing still but are actually reducing their budgeted expenditure in real terms.

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Millan: No, I shall not give way. This is a short debate and I am aware that many of my hon. Friends want to contribute to it.
In effect, we have standstill budgets. There is no real increase in local authority expenditure. In the forthcoming year the average domestic ratepayer in Scotland will pay 21 per cent. more than he did in 1984–85. He will pay three times more in cash terms than he did in the last year of the previous Labour Government. At the same time, he will receive poorer services for the additional payments that he is making. We shall again go through the dreary business of penalties. There will be fire and brimstone from the Secretary of State for Scotland about how tough he will be and all the rest of it.
Over the past five or six years we have seen a deliberate attack by the Secretary of State on local authorities, on local democracy and on local services. At last the Secretary of State has been found out. It is a pity that he was not found out sooner. He is responsible for the crisis. It is clear that responsibility rests on his shoulders. If he would deal decently and honestly with local authorities, even at this late stage, he could undo some of the damage that he has done.

Sir Hector Monro: This much-heralded attack on the Government has fallen astonishingly flat. We expected to see at least 30 or 40 Scottish Socialist Members in their places to mount the attack, but we see only 13, of which two are from the shadow Scottish Office, two from the shadow Foreign Office, two from the Opposition Whips' Office and one from the shadow Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is hardly a Scottish Opposition Back Bencher in his place. Even the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is in his place to help pad out the attendance of Labour Members.
Where is the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who was making snide remarks on Monday about the probable attendance this evening? I have a very good idea where he is. Scottish Labour Members have been shouting the odds in the press ever since the debate was announced. We were told that it would be a devastating attack on the Government. If the Opposition can get only six Back Benchers to attend, it is a pretty miserable affair for them. Of course, I did not expect any Scottish SDP Members to be present.

Mr. Home Robertson: What about the rates?

Sir Hector Monro: I am coming to the rates. For the moment I am directing myself to the non-existent attack from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) might have been playing the halls tonight as a rather second-rate Billy Connolly. He would do rather better if he stuck to the Belgrano. I suppose that it is unfortunate that he does not have his other half in the Chamber this evening, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
I was called to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), and that was reminiscent of the mid-1970s, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. The then Conservative Opposition complained bitterly about the way that he was handling rate support grant and revaluation. I recall frequently saying to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have since he left Office, that we were a long way from getting—Well, we have another starter. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has entered the Chamber. I was saying that I remember saying frequently to the right hon. Member for Govan that there was no balance between authorities within the guidelines, especially in the rural areas, and the rate support grant.
I accept that there has been a reduction in the RSG over the years, and rightly so in terms of public expenditure. As both sides accept, that greatly affected authorities which were keeping within their guidelines. Coupled with revaluation, it has brought about a very serious situation.
The Opposition, however, have not given sufficient consideration to the great improvement in domestic rates due to the relief provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The figure of 21 per cent. that is bandied about in the press may well turn out to be nearer 14 or 15 per cent. when the rates are actually paid, although much will depend on the revaluation of individual properties. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate what my right hon. Friend has done. As it was done in two stages—first allowing 5p and then a further 3p—it is clear that he was always well aware of that issue.
We should also like to know—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may not be able to tell us, as it is not his responsibility—how the assessors arrive at different factors for different areas, whether it be of 2·6 as in one district in my constituency, 2·4, 2·3 or whatever. That has a serious impact on the resource element available to district authorities as well as on regional rates. Whatever the reason for the difference in the factors, this has become one of the most serious issues of the revaluation. It will be interesting to see how the figures stand up to the many appeals that I predict will take place in the coming months.
Great concern has also been aroused among my hon. Friends—and, one hopes, among the Opposition—about the actual figures put on domestic, commercial and industrial property. I have heard of increases from £5,000 to £25,000 for shops in Dumfries and of threefold and even fivefold increases for other properties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has said, the increases applied to hotels will inevitably affect the tourist industry and will cost owners and occupiers a substantial amount when the rates have to be paid.

Mr. Ancram: As I said the other day in relation to the Borders, although in areas such as my hon. Friend's


constituency valuations for commercial properties have been increased, there are also gainers, albeit not in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is interesting to note, for instance, that the North-West Castle hotel in Stranraer has had a reduction of 30 per cent. in the actual rates to be paid.

Sir Hector Monro: That is splendid news for the North-West Castle—a hostelry of the highest repute and an excellent curling club. I hope that it will now be able to offer special discounts to regular customers.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may also have some helpful news for us as to whether the provisions of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 relating to sports grounds have proved effective. I appreciate that this is likely to go to appeal, but my hon. Friend may be able to impart some interesting knowledge with regard to Celtic, Ayr races, Ayr football club, and so on. I believe that there may be some good news for sports ground owners and it would be interesting to hear some figures when my hon. Friend winds up the debate. Indeed, I should be happy to give way now if he has managed to locate the information.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he mentioned Ayr football club. I understand that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has some interests in that area. He might be interested to learn that what it pays in rates will be reduced by 48 per cent. as a result of the revaluation.

Sir Hector Monro: There we are. Let us have some cheers from the hon. Gentleman who lives in that beautiful countryside. I am sorry to see that he has departed. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is up there in the Strangers' Gallery.") From that exalted position, he has even further to bend to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has achieved such assistance for his football club.
We have all read with interest — I am sure that Opposition Members will have read every page —the Layfield report and subsequent Green Papers. We all appreciate that it is astonishingly difficult to find the right time to make improvements to the rating system. I shall not pronounce now how I think it should be done. I listened with interest to those with greater knowledge. The present system seems so unfair that it cannot go on for more than another year or two while the proper legislation is brought through the House.
A relatively small number of people pay the rates, yet they are the victims of Socialist Administrations which are profligate with other people's money. We must find a better system so that we can look after all ratepayers. I am sure that the Government will ensure that the present system does not continue one year longer than is necessary. I am sure that they will make every effort to ensure that an alternative system is in the pipeline and ready for operation as soon as possible.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to bring a note of rationality and reasonableness to the debate. Anyone who thinks that the present system is a shambles, as I do, has to make clear

his view on the revaluation. Given the present system of rating reviews to raise local government finance, it is imperative to have regular revaluations.
The Minister should consider closely the work done by the Anderson commission of inquiry into commercial rating in 1970. It concluded that it was reasonable to have regular revaluations only on the basis of their being carried out simultaneous north and south of the border. Those whose live just across the River Tweed from England find it unreasonable that they must bear burdens which their English neighbours escape. That point must be borne in mind. We would accept a regular revaluation, although I must qualify that by saying, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) eloquently said, that the Government could have anticipated many of the difficulties more sensitively. There are devices and ways of cushioning the blows. Although I give the Government credit fro bringing forward extra domestic relief, it may not be enough.
Earlier, the Government were criticised for the sums that they were giving away. I give them credit for putting back some money, but the fact that it was necessary to do so when they did it demonstrates that they had not fully anticipated the effects of the combination of revaluation and reductions in rate support grant. That is the Government's philosophy and policy and they are entitled to hold that view, but they are culpable for not looking sufficiently far ahead and anticipating the way in which the reduction in rate support grant would compound the revaluation. The Government should be condemned for that.
I agree with much that has been said about the effects of the domestic increases. My experience shows that retired and elderly people who live on fixed incomes without the benefit of large capital sums are extremely nervous about the way in which the domestic position is affecting and will affect them in future.
More important is the position that affects commercial ratepayers, especially small businesses. The National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses has done a great deal of work in my constituency and other areas in trying to assist appeals that will be necessary. The Minister has said in exchanges with me that he believes that the appeal mechanism will deal with the problem.

Mr. Ancram: If it is unfair.

Mr. Kirkwood: The appeal mechanism will deal with the problem, if it is unfair. However, the problem is more fundamental than that. Money is now much tighter than it was at the time of the last revaluation, which caused tremendous heartache. We must take into account the present high interest rates. Small businesses have had commercial increases visited on them which bear no relation to their profitability, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said. They cannot anticipate the increases, such as those from revaluations and changes in the rate support grant this year. There is no security for them in future.
Family businesses find it extremely difficult to control their costs. They often employ members of the family and, like everyone else, they face increased costs, but can increase their income only by increasing the number of customers. In some cases that is impossible. The Under-Secretary comes from an area where there is a huge landward population, and knows that many such


businesses are situated in small villages and towns. Local authorities throughout Scotland are working hard to sustain landward populations. Changes such as these will have a dramatic impact. The Minister may say that it is localised, but I have examples from my constituency and from my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and, although the hon. Member for Tayside, North did not regale us with examples, all over Scotland there are many small businesses in rural areas which will suffer. If they do not suffer to the extent of closing, they will let the fabric of their heritable property suffer, whether it is a shop, a garage, a hotel and or whatever. They are laying in store problems for the future. The problems of tourism are also intimately involved, and the Government will have to take them into account.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has defined the problem eloquently. What is the solution? Does he favour the Liberal party's previous solution of a local income tax, given that it would take until the early 1990s to introduce such a reform?

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening, because he brings me to my concluding point. If people criticise what is happening now, they must say what should happen in its place. If I were the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland now, the position is so serious for commercial ratepayers that I would introduce an emergency package of relief for them. The hon. Gentleman may say that the machinery is not easily available for that, and I accept that. As he says, commercial ratepayers are not represented locally in terms of votes on local authorities. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect them to suffer increases of more than 50 per cent. in the short term.
It may not be easy to resolve the problem, but one device could be investigated. If the average multiplier of commercial rates is 2·6 across the board, why do we not consider giving cash relief on an established needs basis to every commercial ratepayer who has suffered a rate increase of a multiplier in excess of 4? In some parts of the country the multiplier is nothing like 2·6; it is somewhere between 4 and 7. The Stirling area is one such area. In the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) talked about such increases. We can all show cases where the multiplier is more than 4. I do not believe that, numerically, that would be a big number. I would guess—it is a fag-packet estimate—that between 1,000 and 1,500 businesses in Scotland are in that position. If they all received an average cash payment of £1,000—that is another fag-packet estimate — the Government would have to spend only £1 million or £1·5 million, which would be a lifeline to those small businesses. That is what I would do, because the problem is so serious that it would merit such treatment.
If the Minister is searching for gestures that are slightly more hollow but which nevertheless would be welcome, he could increase the percentage that commercial ratepayers could retain while they appeal. At present, the proportion is 10 per cent. Some of those businesses will not last a year. If the Minister made the proportion 50 per cent., to give those businesses a breathing space until their affairs were in order, he would do much to help. Those are the short-term measures that we should be considering now.
For the long term, the Liberal party has a well-developed policy on local income tax which could be brought forward. The computerisation programme could be put on stream earlier. I know that that is the argument which the Minister will put forward in defence of the local income tax not being introduced earlier.
The right hon. Member for Govan said that a local income tax would not be the complete answer, and I agree with him. It would have to be supported by central funding. But it is not impossible. This revaluation is my first—I hope that it is my last—and I do not believe that the present system can survive.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that small business people in my constituency are being told that the appeals delay will be not one year but two years? Does he accept that they have no chance of staying in business if their cases take so long?

Mr. Kirkwood: That is a valuable point, which gives me a good point on which to wind up my speech.
In my constituency I have had meetings, and I know that other hon. Members have had similar experiences, which have shown that traders are getting together and are systematically and in concert using the appeal procedure, which will get clogged up. If that happens, there is no early prospect of getting this business resolved. I make no apology for indulging in special pleading for small businesses in the commercial sector. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider some of the ideas that I have put forward.

12 midnight

Mr. Michael Hirst: I feel that I am uniquely entitled, if not well qualified, to speak in this debate, as my constituents have the invidious distinction of paying the highest rates in Scotland, and probably, outside central London, the highest rates in Britain. I was somewhat rueful to note in The Times this morning that the average rates for Kensington and Chelsea for next year are £743, when many of my constituents would give their eye teeth to be paying only £743.
It was perhaps inevitable that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) should choose this subject, but it was wrong and unjust of him to try to make political capital out of the understandable fears of the people of Scotland. Labour's position on local government spending bears just a moment of examination. Labour party members are the people who invariably support higher spending. Has one ever heard of a Labour-controlled local authority that wants fewer services? Labour party members can find the money for the striking miners when it suits them. They are the people in Edinburgh district council who have not spared any expense to put up signs all around the city advertising their peculiar notion that higher local spending produces more local authority jobs. They are the people who are sending their councillors off on a freebie to Cordoba to study nuclear-free zones, with not the slightest consideration for the poor ratepayers at home who have to pick up the tab for them. They are the people who, in Glasgow, were prepared to knock down a block of tenements rather than sell them to the private sector.
I invite the House, although it is gone midnight, to consider what the prevailing level of rates in Scotland would be if it were not for the efforts that my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made to restrain local government spending. The Conservative party does not take credit for the fact that local government spending is higher in quantum terms than it was in 1979.
Some Labour Members support revaluation, and I give them credit for their honesty in admitting it. They did so in 1982 when the matter was first discussed, and do so now that it is back on the agenda. They are the people who want higher spending and are not willing to compromise over any restriction on services. That cocktail must mean higher rates for ratepayers. It was an unconvincing performance for the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley to weep crocodile tears on behalf of Scottish ratepayers when one looks at the example of his friends in local government.
I recognise the widespread concern in Scotland, and the bewilderment and anger of many people who will have to pay substantially higher rates next year. They ask two legitimate questions. The first is why they in Scotland should have a revaluation when there is no revaluation south of the border, and the second is why, on this occasion, the domestic ratepayers are suffering.
Although the principles of rating may be similar north and south of the border, the practices are different. I notice that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is here. He rather likes the way of organising our rating system that we have in Scotland. The fact that the assessors are bound by statute to have regular revaluations in Scotland, but that the Inland Revenue south of the border is able to postpone, apparently indefinitely, its revaluations is a grievance that Scottish ratepayers are right to articulate.
I note that Scottish requirements are dealt with under legislation that was passed by the last Labour Government, supported by the Liberal party. Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy that the Opposition should now be weeping crocodile tears about the increases? Scottish ratepayers must not be allowed to forget that the Act of Parliament which calls for periodic revaluation in Scotland was passed by a Labour Government.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect upon the fact, since he referred to hypocrisy, that the manifesto commitment of his party was as follows:
We will also take steps to bring the Scottish and English valuation systems more into line, to prevent anomalies occurring."? 
What has gone wrong?

Mr. Hirst: I spent most of last winter sitting in Committee all through the night on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act. The hon. Gentleman was the Whip on duty and I was convinced that he was blinkered, if not asleep. The fact that he has asked that question, when I recall that we spent about six hours talking about English comparators, proves to me that the Committee discussions went right over his head.
The other question which many of my constituents are asking is why Scottish domestic ratepayers have come out worse. Few domestic ratepayers recall that the result of the 1978 revaluation was that industrial ratepayers were hammered while domestic ratepayers were treated relatively lightly. However, inflation was running at 25 per cent. under the last Labour Government. Although the

amount paid by domestic ratepayers went down after the 1978 revaluation, none of us noticed the difference because of the prevailing rate of inflation.
This time, however, there is a partial redress of the imbalance, or so we are told. Industrial ratepayers will pay less while commercial ratepayers come out about even, but I have heard of no commercial ratepayer in my constituency who finds himself the uniquely favoured recipient of a neutral rates bill. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to leap to his feet, as he has already done with unfailing regularity, and tell me about some of the commercial ratepayers in Strathkelvin and Bearsden who have been presented with a neutral rates bill.
The domestic ratepayer will bear a larger share of the burden, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was prepared to acknowledge that fact. Although the Opposition may scoff, he was prepared to come to the House and offer Scottish domestic ratepayers more relief than their friends in COSLA had requested. The 5p initially and the extra 3p subsequently may be scorned by the Opposition, but it is not scorned by my ratepayers, who appreciate the relief that has been given.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) was right when he said that one of the causes of higher rates was the reduction in rate support grant. That fact has to be recognised by all hon. Members. It would be quite wrong of me to welcome higher spending on health, social services and law and order without at the same time accepting that other budgets will suffer a consequential reduction. Although I regret the reduction in the level of rate support grant, I accept that it is part of the package which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office believed it right to implement.
My concern does not stop at the quantum of rate support grant but extends to its distribution. This has caused much anguish in district councils. The needs element of rate support grant has been substantially curtailed. I have made representations privately to the Minister and publicly—[Interruption.] Hon. Members do me a disservice if they think that I am thinking of only one local authority. I am concerned about both local authorities in my constituency. Both have suffered reductions, although they are of different complexions. The irony is that, if ever there was an example of a local authority running its affairs in a prudent and careful way it is the Bearsden and Milngavie district council. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. He acknowledges the prudent way in which that council has conducted itself. I am grateful for his extra support on the non housing revenue account allocation this year.
Such a substantial reduction puts pressures on local authorities, their officials and councillors and ultimately upon the ratepayers. I am not ashamed to admit that I argued for a slower shift of resources from the districts to the regions because I believe that a massive shift will create difficulties. As a pragmatist, I am a gradualist in all things. [Interruption.] I am sure that the people of Scotland will be reassured by the fact that after midnight signs of life come from the Opposition Benches.
I repeat the concern that I expressed on Monday in the Scottish Grand Committee about the rate support grant allocation for 1986–87. I was heartened by the Minister's assurance that he and the Secretary of State would consider my representations carefully. However, like many other hon. Members, I find rates an unsatisfactory method of financing local government expenditure. They are


regressive. They take no account of ability to pay. The people who are most severely affected by rates are those on modest incomes, those who have retired but have some savings, and those who are on a level of income which is just too high to obtain benefit, but for whom rates take a significant proportion of their income.
The rating system takes no account of the use made of local services. How many times is resentment expressed to hon. Members on all sides of the House by people who can see that some neighbouring households enjoy four or five incomes, but pay the same rates?
The Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 made several welcome improvements to the rating system, but one of the objections to the system is that overspending is passed back to the ratepayer. The real losers are the ratepayers who suffer loss of grant, not the people who enjoy the extra services which contribute to the overspending. Construction firms and small businesses who could have a share of the capital spending cake, which is forfeited because of overspending, also suffer.

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that an overspend of only 5 per cent. by five regional councils, which does not sound very much, works out in practice, for the reasons that my hon. Friend is giving, in ratepayers having to face a 22 per cent. increase in rates, whereas if there is a cut of 5 per cent., the effect on rate increases in regional councils would be only 2 per cent.?

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point. He has made with eloquence a point which can be repeated in councils the length and breadth of Scotland. It is the same old thing, that he, like me, must reflect ruefully upon the fact that the local authority was prepared to churn out money as though is was from a printing machine when it came to helping its friends in the mining community, whose misery was self-inflicted, unlike the misery inflicted upon ratepayers as a result of what has been done.
I have to argue strongly for a review of the system, not least because the relationship between local government and central Government must be reformed. I believe that there are substantial advantages to be obtained from removing the inevitable haggling that results year after year, the penalties that are imposed on local government for profligacy and the objectionable results that are often passed back to the ratepayers as a result of overspending.
I believe—here I may be at variance with some of my hon. Friends — that, when the history books are written, revaluation will be shown to have been the catalyst that brought about the reform of the domestic rating system which we all want. I believe that the injustices of the system and the way in which it has worked out in practice have created an irresistible momentum for change which I hope will be picked up and reflected in action by Government.
I have to utter a word of caution, because there will be those who will argue that there is advantage and merit in Scotland being the guinea pig for some sort of United Kingdom change. The great beauty of the Government is that we have the breadth of vision and the breadth of debate. Unfortunately, that is not be found on the Opposition Benches, whose Members have given us a predictable response. I urge caution because I recognise that a Scotland-only solution will narrow the alternatives. At this stage, I should like to see the field left as open as

possible. I do not believe that there is any advantage in hurrying towards a solution which will take us off one hook merely to impale us upon another. [Laughter.]
I think that it is tragic that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley should be bursting with laughter about a serious matter which afflicts his constituents as well as mine. I believe that, when Opposition Members read Hansard, they will reflect upon the matter.
I do not want a botched solution. I want to see a solution that takes account of the momentum for change both north and south of the border, and one that properly takes account of ability to pay and the use made of local services.
I am bound to confess to a preference for a system of local income tax with some control. I accept that there will be problems in achieving this, although hon. Members who were present last Wednesday to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury winding up the debate on the Budget will be aware that he explained that the developments in the computerisation of taxpayers' records south of the border were likely to take place sooner than many of us had otherwise expected. In bringing together the tax and Budget systems, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government will not forget the possibility that must exist for developing a system of income tax.

Mr. Forsyth: Allowing for the problem of computerisation, how would my hon. Friend overcome the problem, with a local income tax, that the Inland Revenue say that the minimum by which the tax could be increased would be a halfpenny, meaning that local authorities would have to increase their revenue by amounts of 10 per cent. on each occasion. That would encourage the very profligacy about which he has been complaining.

Mr. Hirst: That is a legitimate point. If the political will exists, such problems can be overcome. At the end of the day, a hybrid solution may be produced, though I am not attracted by that possibility.
I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to reassure the beleaguered Scottish ratepayers that the Government understand the problem, that an important element has been the overspending—which seems to be encouraged by Opposition Members—and that there is at least the prospect of a commitment to reform.

Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that many small businesses would find themselves bankrupt before their appeals were decided. Indeed, he thought that appeals could take a year or two to decide. I am one of the few hon. Members who participated in a major appeal at the time of the 1978 revaluation. Four years passed before we received a decision from the appeals tribunal in Edinburgh, and that appeal concerned just over 50 ratepayers. Today, almost everybody who has recently received an assessment has indicated an intention to appeal.
Appeals of this nature must be based on comparisons. The only way to obtain a comparison is to check the valuation rolls. As those documents are not printed and available locally, an appeal cannot even be started. For that reason, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and


Berwickshire made a valid point when he said that small businesses would be bankrupt before their appeals were resolved.

Mr. Ancram: It is worth remembering that under section 9 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 there is a proviso for rating authorities to agree with the appellant for the payment of less than 90 per cent. until the appeal has been determined. Local authorities may wish to consider that.

Mr. Lambie: On that basis, people who have been charged an increase of, say, £100, could be told, "If you appeal, we will save you £10 this year, but you must pay £90 of the increase." The important part is the £90, not the rebate that they will be given while the appeal is under consideration. The Minister's point represents only a sop. He has no experience of these matters. He should consult the Secretary of State, who knows how long it takes to get these matters settled. Many of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents in Ayr were time-barred from appealing because of the delay that was involved in reaching what has become known as the Troon decision. Therefore, before the hon. Gentleman tries to be smart, let him consult the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The point was made by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that the Government have said that in regard to commercial property the revaluation is neutral. Let them tell the shopkeepers in the main street in Callendar, or the people in my area, or the people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Come), that it is a neutral revaluation. It is all right for the Under-Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and say that everything in the garden is lovely and that Ayr racecourse and Ayr United football club will get massive reductions in their rates bills.
What will the hon. Gentleman say to all the bowling clubs in North Ayrshire? What will he say to Ardeer bowling club, for example, with a membership of 82 men and 44 women, where the rateable value of £1,750 will be increased to £4,400, an increase of 251 per cent.? The members will be well pleased when I tell them that all the supporters of Ayr United are doing well. All the friends of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who go down to Ayr racecourse will be pleased that it is doing well. What about the ordinary people who are members of bowling clubs which will be put out of business because of the effects of revaluation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) talked about the by-election result for the North Kyle seat on Strathclyde regional council. That is an area I know well. I was glad to lose it from my old constituency of Central Ayrshire under the boundary revision, because there were not many Labour voters in it. Some of my Labour colleagues were angry when I said that that part of Central Ayrshire should go to the constituency of the Secretary of State. He was happy to get it.
One of the reasons why the Tories lost that by-election may have been that they sent down their old friend, John Davidson, the Scottish director of the Confederation of British Industry, to speak to the young Tories in Troon the Saturday before the by-election. What did he speak about? He told them that revaluation was the greatest thing since

sliced bread and that ICI's rates had been substantially reduced. The week before, John Harvey-Jones, the chairman of ICI, made a statement in London that ICI had made £1,000 million profit last year. The ratepayers of Troon had to cheer that. ICI, Beechams and Roches are getting their rates reduced, but the ratepayers in Troon are getting their rates increased. That was probably why the Tories lost the by-election. If the Labour party ever wants a spokesman before a by-election, it should send for John Davidson. He will make a good job of it; he is certainly honest. The CBI is organised and financed by big business, and he is not interested in the small businesses in my area.
I shall have to say to the garage owners in my area and in that of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, "It is all right. ICI is getting its rates reduced." During the past three years local garage owners have slimmed down their organisations to the bone. Throughout Scotland, garages are going bankrupt because of the economic conditions, and now they are facing increased valuations. For example, in Irvine, one garage rateable value was £4,555; it is now up to £8,500. In Dairy, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, the old rateable value of another garage was £10,247; the new rateable value is £19,150. What is the solution? Men will have to be sacked and facilities curtailed.

Mr. Home Robertson: Sack the Member of Parliament.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member will speak for himself, and I am sure that he will support me when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumfries is not here, because earlier he participated in much banter. Matters are too serious for ratepayers in Scotland for hon. Members to make party political speeches. The ratepayers want decisions—now, not by and by. There should be a united front of all hon. Members interested in being fair to Scotland's ratepayers—not just the major industries—whom we are supposed to represent.

Mr. Bill Walker: In what would the hon. Gentleman like Conservative Members to join him? It is lovely to be "fair". How does the hon. Gentleman propose to be fair?

Mr. Lambie: It is always wrong to give way at this stage of a speech. If the hon. Gentleman had waited, I would have answered the point.
Matters are too serious for party political speeches and for people to indulge in banter about what happened in 1971, 1976 and 1982. As a Member of Parliament representing Troon until the last election, I know how substantial increases in valuation can effect people, especially those on low incomes. It does me no good to say that there is a voice shouting in the wilderness, although I must be fair and point out that our campaign had the full support of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) from 1978–79 until he became Secretary of State for Scotland. He then left the team and battled with me. I am looking for support from hon. Members so that immediate decisions can be taken to help people.
The foundation of the modern Scottish rating system was the Poor Law (Scotland) Act 1845. Since the passing of that legislation, there have been a series of royal commissions, departmental committees and working parties looking into the rating system. There is nothing


new in examining complaints about the system. Every one of those major committees, with one exception, has until recently come out in favour of the present rating system.
In 1976, the Labour Government set up the Layfield committee to investigate rates in the United Kingdom. It too, after all its investigations, came out in favour of the present basic rating system, although it said that it should be modified by the introduction of an element of local income tax. In 1982, when the Select Committee on the Environment decided to investigate the rating system, it also came out, after all the evidence, in favour of the present rating system. Therefore, those who want to change the system must do so in a way that counteracts all the evidence that has been given to the various royal commissions, departmental committees, working parties, Select Committees and so on since 1845.
It is not right that, as the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said, revaluation was stopped in England and Wales because the Inland Revenue refused to do it. That is not true. Revaluation was stopped in England and Wales in 1979 when the present Secretary of State for Defence, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, went to a Tory party conference and told the ratepayers of England and Wales to tear up the assessment forms that had been issued by the Inland Revenue.
If the Secretary of State is really serious, why does he not tell the ratepayers of Scotland to tear up their revaluation notices, get us back to square one, and give us a chance to look at the alternatives? Let us not interfere at this stage with the balance between domestic ratepayers, commercial ratepayers and industrial ratepayers.
That is one of the things which the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and all of us should be advocating if we are serious. I cannot expect the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden to support me, because he is a young guy looking for promotion, as are some hon. Members on this side as well, but old stagers like the hon. Member for Tayside, North and my old friend the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) have nothing to gain in the promotion stakes. The latter has already burnt his boats. He should be speaking up in support of the ratepayers.
In 1981, after the Secretary of State for the Environment had told the ratepayers of England and Wales to tear up their assessment notices, the Government published a Green Paper on alternatives to domestic rates. They looked at the alternatives—a local sales tax, local income tax, the poll tax, so dearly loved by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—and rejected them completely.
The Government also put forward the other alternative—the correct one, which I think we should be following—which is assigned Exchequer revenue for such things as education and police, even considering 100 per cent. Government grants. Education is now 50 per cent. of all local government expenditure. Why do the Government not finance education completely? That would solve many of the problems. I know that many councillors and other people, including myself until a certain stage, said that we could not have 100 per cent. Government grants because that would be doing away with local democracy, but there is no local democracy now. Why do we not change the Government? It was a Labour Government who brought in indicative costs. Local authorities are never again to be given a free hand. We have to accept that. The

Government set the sum of money that is given to local authorities. Local democracy should then consist of the local council deciding on the priorities within the budget.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lambie: I am just about to finish.
I can remember the old days when my father was treasurer of the borough of Saltcoats, and when the councillors could sit down and say, "How can we benefit the people who stay in Saltcoats?" My father could manipulate grants by the Labour or Conservative Government, no matter how they were paid out; for example, the old equalisation grant. Saltcoats always did well because we had a person who could use local democracy. We built houses when the rates of interest were low. It might not have been a Socialist solution, but we stopped building them when the rates of interest were high. There were no developments then. When the subsidies came down, we stopped building. When the subsidies went up, my God we built. When subsidies were stopped for general housing and the Government started to give subsidies for multi-storey development, we said that Saltcoats would build two blocks of multi-storey flats. We were the smallest town in Britain, but we built multi-storey flats. Because of Dick Mabon we got permission, although it was against the advice of the then Secretary of State. We got the highest subsidy available.
That was local democracy, but it cannot happen now. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I should say to the Secretary of State, "Let us scrap the rate order tomorrow." The Secretary of State should withdraw it. We should say to him, "Let us tear up the valuation notices and get back to the old valuation." He should give us the opportunity of looking at the alternatives. We could find quick alternatives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) said that we could not change things overnight—

Mr. Millan: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Lambie: I thought that my right hon. Friend said that.
The people in Southern Ireland abolished local rates on domestic properties overnight. Why does the Secretary of State not do that? If we want to give a lead, we should do that.
If Conservative Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Opposition are thinking of helping the ratepayers of Scotland, let us unite and stop all this party political battle and banter from one side of the House to another. Let us get things done. We shall force Ministers on the Front Bench to play fair to the ratepayers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House, as speeches seem to be getting longer, that we need brevity if all those anxious to speak are to be able to do so.

Mr. John Corrie: I find myself in trouble again because I am going to agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) has just said. Before I go any further, I should like to be the one to claim the small prize of the hon. Member


for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for the highest revaluation, at 550 per cent. No one has yet made such a claim.
I remind the House that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) stood at the Dispatch Box in July 1982, when we had the postponement of rating revaluation. He insisted that the Government went ahead with that revaluation when it came about in 1983–84. I assume that, when he stood there and said that, he hoped that he would win that election, so he must have been perfectly happy to see a rate revaluation coming up.
I am probably the only person on Conservative Benches who sat on the Committee with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1974, looking at ways of changing the present system. It was agreed, as many Opposition Members have said, that we should repeal domestic rates. However, in 1974, it would have taken a few hundred million to wipe out domestic rates. After five years of the Labour Government, by the time we came to power in 1979, that figure had increased to a few thousand million. When we came to power, that was part of the reason why it was not done.
It is interesting to note the reactions to poll tax from the Opposition. There is no doubt that, whatever else it would do, local authorities would be less inclined to push up a poll tax when it affected people who were also the voters. That may be right, when there is so much opposition to a poll tax from the Labour party. However, it is at that moment that I part company from my hon. Friend the Minister, because no issue in Scotland has angered my constituents more than revaluation has over the past few months. During 11 years in Parliament, I have never had such bitter, angry and, on many occasions, vile letters as I have received during the past few months.
People do not want even to try to understand why revaluation has taken place—they are against it and that is the end of it. Reasoned replies trying to explain why it has occurred are not accepted. Even more worrying, it has provoked nationalistic feelings in Scotland such as we have not seen since 1974. That is bad for Scotland.
The regular theme running through many of the letters is that Scotland has become a second-class nation. People wonder why they should be hammered when the English have escaped revaluation. It is no use saying that it is 12 years and England is out of phase, so when the time comes there will be 1,400 per cent. increases in England. We do not know whether that time will come. It is no use saying that domestic rates in Scotland are more, on average, than they are in England because the whole thing is distorted by housing in Scotland. It is no use saying that we must compare like with like because that does not hold water.
Hotels, sporting grounds and shops are not just hundreds but often thousands of pounds out of phase between England and Scotland. The whole rating system is now so discredited that the public will no longer tolerate it. There can be no more ifs and buts—it is no use tinkering with the rotten system, because the more we do so the more rotten it will become. We must change the system.
Many constituents are angry about the way that the assessors work. They believe that assessors, at the stroke of a pen, can decide the valuation of any property. Because there are so many assessors and so many variables throughout Scotland, there is a real distortion in the

valuation of properties. The worry is that if someone appeals and uses a friend's property with a ower valuation as an example, that friend's property valuation might be raised. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that?
I make no apology for putting forward some examples, such as the small island of Cumbrae which is a tourist island with a small population. It depends on its tourists, hotels and shops. I thank Mr. Bill Reid from the local tourist association for producing figures. The domestic rateable value in total has risen from £173,000 to £493,000, a factor of 2·86. That of the house has risen from £56 to £308—an increase of 550 per cent. The domestic rate paid has risen from £246,000 to £326,000 — an increase of 32·1 per cent. On commercial properties, the rateable value in total has risen from £74,000 to £175,000—an increase of 229 per cent. The rates payable have risen from £103,000 to £122,000—an increase of 17·3 per cent. The rates bill in total for that small island, which depends on its small shops and businesses in the short summer season, has risen from £377,000 to £478,000—an increase of £101,000 or 26·3 per cent. That is about £90 per head of the population.
I was there last week and saw tears of despair among many of the shopkeepers, who cannot face such an increase. There was one small bar whose rateable value increased from £800 to £4,400. Businesses cannot cope with such impositions. The story is the same throughout the constituency. I was reading the local newspaper only today about a famous restaurant in the area that is called The Moorings. The business hoped to reopen for the tourist season, but it has been told that if it did its new rateable value would be £60,000, an increase of £15,000 since last year. The management has decided not to reopen the restaurant. That is a disaster for Larga, which is a tourist area.
There are three options. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could do nothing. That would be unacceptable to both sides of the House and to the public generally. Secondly, he could find extra finance. I accept that he has already done so, and that has made a difference. However, it is highly unlikely that he will be able to do so again in the light of the present constraints. Thirdly, he could find a fairer way to spread the burden. That must be done so that those who pay are those who can afford to do so. We must overcome the unfortunate and, indeed, tragic circumstances that many are now facing.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) attack local authorities such as Glasgow.

Mr. Hirst: I did not mention Glasgow.

Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to attack any local authority for spending, for he is not slow to spend himself. He spends his Tory party funds on sending out newsletters that sometimes consist of six pages. He does so every month.

Mr. Hirst: Private enterprise.

Mr. Martin: I put it to him when I was on the Edinburgh relief road inquiry that it was good of him to send a birthday card to a young girl in his constituency. He could not remember the girl to whom he had sent the


card. He explained that he sent out so many birthday cards that he could not remember the individuals. If local authorities emulate the hon. Gentleman's example, they will be spending a great deal of money.

Mr. Corrie: Cheap.

Mr. Martin: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden attacks local authorities when he knows that he imposed a burden of £39 million on the good people of Edinburgh by approving a relief road—

Mr. Hirst: I do not think that this is the time or the place to discuss the relief road. However, I remind the hon. Member that the merits of the case were well proved. Does he approve of the decision taken by his local authority, Glasgow district council, to prefer a hole in the ground to selling flats to private enterprise? That is the attitude that it takes in pursuit of political ideology.

Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman claimed that he did not attack Glasgow and now he has reminded us that he did.

Mr. Hirst: What is the answer to my question?

Mr. Martin: Those in glasshouses should not take a bath. The hon. Gentleman should not attack others for spending when he did exactly that only a few weeks ago. He was given legal advice by high respected Queen's counsel on the eighth day of an inquiry. He was advised that the inquiry should not proceed as it was not proper that it should. The hon. Gentleman could have stopped it after eight days but he decided that it should continue. The inquiry continued for 52 days, with six QCs receiving £750 a day. He cost the taxpayers nearly £1 million by not taking legal advice. He should not attack Glasgow for doing anything which might be considered illegal. He is not so good at taking legal advice himself.

Mr. Hirst: Oh dear. I understood the facts.

Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the senior officials who give advice to Glasgow councillors all live in his constituency. They all live in Bearsden. He should not attack Glasgow too much, because he may be having a go at his own constituents and he badly needs their votes. He should remember how many people in his constituency depend for their livelihood on Glasgow district council and Strathclyde region, so when he imagines that he is attacking a Labour administration he is in fact attacking his own constituents.
The hon. Gentleman also forgets that his local authority, to which he gives a pat on the back, does not have the Scottish Opera, the Scottish National Orchestra or the world famous Burrell art collection in its area.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Martin: No, I will not give way. We have been asked to keep our contributions short. The hon. Gentleman was not here earlier.

Mr. Forsyth: I was upstairs in Committee.

Mr. Martin: I do not care where the hon. Gentleman was. He was not here to take part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden should remember that a great deal of Glasgow's financing goes to the benefit of people living in the peripheral areas of Glasgow who do not contribute to the rates.

Mr. Hirst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Martin: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.
My secretary has been on the phone to the Scottish Office to inquire about the poverty fund that the EEC is supposed to have set up. If local authorities are under attack, that fund should be available for projects in Springburn because there is a great deal of poverty in my community. I understand that about £100,000 is available from the EEC to help projects such as the after-school care scheme devised by the Springburn single parents association. With the sum available we shall be lucky to finance four projects a year in Scotland. It is clear, therefore, that the millions of pounds that the Secretary of State says are available to help ratepayers are in fact coming from other funds within the Scottish Office.
If help is not forthcoming from the Scottish Office for projects in my community, there will be pressure on the local authority. As a result of high unemployment and the other problems faced by communities such as mine, more and more authorities have to consider schemes that they would not have considered in the past when help was available from the Scottish Office, the Manpower Services Commission or the urban aid scheme.

Mr. Hirst: rose—

Mr. Martin: No, I will not give way. I have waited for hours to make my contribution. The hon. Gentleman has already said his piece. Indeed, if he had not taken so long about it, we should be a good deal further ahead.
There are now more burdens on local authorities than ever before because of the problems presented to them by the Scottish Office. It is nonsense just to listen to small business men as though they were the only people worth considering. As long as I have been involved in local and national government, shopkeepers and business men have complained about the rates. However, they do not tell us that they depend on local government spending to make a living. Lafferty, the building company, would not exist if it were not for local government spending. Subcontractors who work for such companies would not be in business if it were not for local government expenditure, so they cannot complain about paying rates for their premises. Indeed, they often lobby councillors, COSLA, Members of Parliament and Ministers for more spending on housing and road building.
Many shopkeepers approached me about the building of the Blindcraft workshop in Springburn. That workshop will not bring business directly, but it will indirectly as there will be more passing trade and activity in the area. If it had not been for Strathclyde regional council, it would not have been decided to bring the biggest blind workshop in Europe to my constituency. They cannot have it both ways—they cannot have projects in Scotland and not pay rates.
No matter what we introduce, whether rates, a poll tax or any other form of tax, there is no such thing as a popular tax. Whatever we introduce, people will complain.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). For small business men and commercial ratepayers, we have heard of rateable values increasing from £800 to £4,000. In one case in my constituency, the increase was from nearly £700 to well above £2,000.
Commercial ratepayers should be considered sympathetically and urgently. They should be made aware of the accelerated appeal procedure. During an appeal they are entitled to a 10 per cent. rebate. Can it be increased? It should surely be possible to table a suitable amendment or new clause to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill on Report. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would give that serious consideration.
There is nothing quite so powerful as an idea whose time has come, and the commitment that the rating system should be abolished within the lifetime of a parliament is such an idea. Revaluation will act as a catalyst, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said. The central issue is the unfairness of the system and the fact that only a small proportion of the electorate contribute the vast proportion of the rates burden.
We should also consider the lack of accountability of the assessors. I vividly remember taking a group to see the assessor in Edinburgh after the new runway of Edinburgh Airport was built. It was clear that those living near the airport would suffer much heavier noise levels and have to have double glazing and the rest; yet he would not give them a reduction in rateable value. They took him to court and eventually defeated him. He refused to give way until forced to do so. My constituents shared the legal costs so that none bore too heavy a risk.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Did not the Conservative party say that the idea's time had come in February 1974, when they made a manifesto commitment to abolish the rates? By 1979, that time had moved on and it had been abandoned altogether by 1983.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot speculate what would have happened, if the Conservatives had won that election, but since they did not, the matter is academic. The present position is very different from that which persisted in the past. Domestic relief will help, but something stronger is required now.
I now turn to the solution that would work well in practice. A block grant on its own is insufficient because it would lead to inflexibility and the risk of continual confrontations. A substantial block grant funded from income tax, which covered the main services to a large extent and contributed between 70 and 90 per cent. of the expenditure required, would go a long way towards meeting the problem. If a balance is required, poll tax is a possibility. A poll tax needs an equal sum to be charged per capita, irrespective of income. That is not an insurmountable objection if the block grant is sufficiently large. However, there would be the problem of collection of a poll tax. I hope that my hon. Friend will think through all the implications of collection seriously before any firm decisions are made on that matter. I hope that he will also consider small businesses.
We heard earlier about racecourses. Will my hon. Friend also consider Edinburgh zoo? It is the highest rated zoo in the whole of Britain. It has the finest national collection of animals in Scotland. In the overall scheme of things, that may be a minor matter, but nevertheless it is important for Edinburgh. The time for fulfilling the promise to domestic ratepayers has come, and I hope that it will not be long before it is fulfilled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his brevity.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) made that ringing statement with all the conviction of a man with a majority of 498. In due course we shall see whether the time has come for the reform of local government finance, or for new representation for the city of Edinburgh.
The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the rating system, the Government have distorted the way in which the rating system bears on ratepayers in Scotland. The Government have gone to enormous lengths to confuse the issue of rates during the past six years. Year after year, they have cut the rate support grant and blamed local councils for the consequences of those cuts. We have seen an unprecedented shift of the burden of payment for local services away from central Government rate support grant to the poor suffering ratepayers. The Minister and the House know that, and the penny is beginning to drop among the ratepayers.
The rate support grant comes from funds raised through relatively fair central Government taxation, while rates are a spectacularly unfair, arbitrary form of local taxation. We have known that for a long time. We have had seven years of shameless humbug from what is left of the Conservative party in Scotland. How well we remember the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) sitting on the Back Benches four years ago ranting about Lothian regional council being the rogue elephant authority of Scottish politics because it had the audacity to try to protect the services that it was elected to provide.
Year after year the Government have taken action to force up the rates, but each year, with yet another diversionary tactic, local councils were vilified and we had the fascinating new concept of mandatory guidelines, clawbacks of rate support grant and, finally, rate capping. The latest round of rate support grant cuts, compounded by the effects of the revaluation, have been the last straw for the electorate and ratepayers of Scotland. The Scottish assessors have finally blown the Secretary of State's cover, and the poor Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), has been left to face the music.
I have some sympathy with the ratepayers of Eastwood and Ayr, because some parts of my constituency are similarly afflicted with irrationally inflated rateable values. I am thinking especially of north Berwick. Those anomalies were more or less tolerable when rates accounted for only a relatively small proportion of local authority budgets, but since successive cuts have meant that rate support grant has been shrunk out of all recognition from what it was before the Government came to power, all Scottish ratepayers have something to protest about.
In my constituency, the ratepayers of East Lothian district must pay 14·1 per cent. more in rates, although the district council has cut its net expenditure by 6 per cent. I would have wished the district council to improve some services and to spend more money, but the restraints imposed by the Secretary of State compel that local authority to restrict its budget. The fact that, despite the cuts, rates have increased graphically illustrates the impact


of the latest round of rate support grant cuts. To make matters worse, the revaluation has shifted an even greater share of the burden onto domestic and commercial ratepayers.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has been caught with his hands in the till, and he has panicked. Domestic rate relief has been increased by 3p, and we have unprecedented fluttering in the Tory dovecotes of Scotland. But the fact that the Secretary of State is flapping his wings does not mean that he will necessarily take off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) said, we have been through this before. In February 1974, the Prime Minister gave a manifesto commitment to scrap the domestic rating system. What be came of that? Earlier, I referred to the Scottish Conservative manifesto of 1983 which, under the heading, "Local government: saving ratepayers' money", said:
We will also take steps to bring the Scottish and English valuation systems more into line to prevent anomalies occurring.
I put that point to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who tried to wriggle out of it by saying that the Government had done something about race courses. There is only one race course in my constituency, and I am unaware of any in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I do not believe that that reform has been of much help to the commercial and domestic ratepayers of Scotland.
We know now that the anomalies between the Scottish and English systems are being aggravated. The Scottish Tory party manifesto continued:
We will make the valuation system more responsive to changing economic circumstances and make it possible for ratepayers to appeal more readily and for appeals to be settled quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth suggested that every ratepayer in Scotland should lodge an appeal with the assessor. We shall see whether that ploy works. I would certainly not blame anyone for doing so.
The Government have overloaded the rating system to such an extent that it has become intolerable. They could put matters right by restoring a realistic level of rate support grant or by extending a special rating relief package. If they fail to do that, the rating system seems likely to collapse. The Secretary of State is caught between the electors of Troon and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be fascinating to see which way he jumps.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: The rating system is an undemocratic system of taxation. First, the two contributors of commerce and industry have no vote. Of those who have a vote, 60 per cent. receive rate rebates, and of the 30 or 40 per cent. who do not receive rebates, only the householder pays. Therefore, the great benefit is to those who receive the services, and the great penalty is to those who must pay for those services. The system must go. If there is one benefit from the split of the various mechanisms that we have had, it is that the death knell of this disastrous system has at last been sounded.
The Socialists have overspent in their regions, and as Jamaica street has been changed from a shopping street into a desert, so the assessor has had to assess Jamaica street down and the prosperous little towns in the country areas up. As that has happened the needs element has been

depressed, and the ratepayers who had something of which to be proud in frugal communities have suffered. That has been the result of the formula.
I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that fact. I find little comfort from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who put through the Act introducing this measure in the first place. He does not even have a house in Scotland, so why is he saying that this is unfair?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: He has two houses.

Mr. Fairbairn: If the right hon. Gentleman has two houses, he is a true Socialist.
It is no good having achieved a situation in which the formula has squinted everything and punished the frugal. It has benefited the rate support grant of Socialist, extravagent authorities, such as Edinburgh, while punishing those, such as Perth and Kinross, which have been frugal. Whether or not that was the intention, that is the fact. It is no good talking about averages and saying that the North-West Castle hotel in Stranraer has had a decrease in its rates. Hurrah, it has had a decrease in its rates and if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary were to go to Stranraer for the weekend, I have no doubt that there would be a 24 per cent. decrease in the cost of his bedroom.
That does not alter the fact that in our ordinary ratepaying areas we have a dangerous situation. Let us take a typical coffee shop in Crieff. In real cash terms, its owners will have to pay an 83 per cent. increase in real terms. They will have to obtain £70 more a week. They can put up their prices by 3 per cent., and add that to the 5 per cent. increase on wages and the 5 per cent. extra that they will have to pay on goods, plus VAT, and so on, but that is not realistic.
The Government must face the reality of the fact that in Perthshire domestic ratepayers will be faced with real 30, 35, 42 or even 48 per cent. increases. It is no good saying that they can stay in some stupid hotel in Stranraer, or watch football somewhere, when on their principal bill—rates are the biggest bill—they will face an increase.
Many people who are old, or who own shops, or who support tourism, or who have bought their own houses, or who are saving for their retirement, and whom we were elected to help, will, as a result of this mechanism, be victims. I do not want to give any help to the Opposition, who love it when the ratepayers, the retired, those who live in Perthshire and those who own their houses, whom they despise, are victims.
If a revaluation system causes inequity for individuals and also unemployment by putting small businesses out of work, and if it damages tourism, closes hotels and harms frugal authorities which have done their best to be economical and sensible, or those who have saved up to buy their own homes or for their retirement, the formula is per se wrong.
I am not interested in averages, or in whether the rates for one bowling green or one hotel go up or down. With inflation at 5 per cent. there cannot be a rating system in Scotland which forces some people to pay a penalty which in no circumstances is it possible for them to sustain. Be it domestic, with relief provided by the Secretary of State, be it commercial, with no relief, or be it commercial—down or up I care not. A system which creates such inconsequential unfairness cannot be tolerated. It is unfair


to those who have done their best by their families and to those who have tried to set up in business or attract tourists. The home is the biggest investment that most people ever make. People should not be turned out of their homes by taxation if their circumstances change. Any system that creates such inhumanity is, I believe, wrong and must be swept away forthwith.
Royal Commissions act like bureaucrats, who have a staggering capacity to find a problem to any solution. Nothing could be worse than this system. It is inequitable and unfair. The Minister believes, as I do, in home ownership and in small businesses, tourism and employment. We must not allow a mechanism to be justified by averages if that mechanism harms employment, tourism, commerce and industry. It must be prevented from doing so much damage. We must prevent it now.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is right to advise the Minister that a crisis is upon us. We do not have much time for reflection about reform. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, many households and businesses are faced with immediate problems as a result of the 1985 revaluation and the cut in the 1985–86 rate support grant by the Government.
Ministers must have been alarmed when the number held by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) came up tonight in the ballot. Revaluation, as a five-yearly exercise, has always been dramatic, but the 1985 revaluation is nightmarish because of the postponement by the Government for political reasons of the one due in 1983. Many of us believed that it would lead to a reform of the system after the general election.
After dallying all these years on rates reform, it looks as if we shall be propelled within weeks into reform proposals by Ministers, or perhaps the Prime Minister. The Perth Conservative conference in May might be a dress rehearsal for the measures that are about to be inflicted upon us. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will make a major pronouncement at Perth. Perhaps we shall have another "Declaration of Perth." We know what happened to the last one.
The suggestion of a poll tax is being floated. I noticed the disparity in views between the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) tonight. Scotland is apparently to be the science lab for experimentation in rates reform, with Scottish ratepayers as the guinea pigs, possibly having attached to their heads £200 per member of their household. No one has yet determined the extent of the poll tax.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) and I entered the House at the same time. He referred to comparisons between Scotland and England. For years, Ministers have said that ratepayers down south pay less than ratepayers in Scotland. Now they are changing their tune and telling us that we do not know how lucky we are in Scotland because south of the Tweed ratepayers pay more.
I understand that the average rate bill in England for 1985–86 will be £420 per annum, including water charges,

whereas the average in Scotland will be £397 per annum. Many people rightly wonder how, without revaluation, local authorities in England can operate. I received a letter from a constituent only today asking that question. Perhaps the Minister will explain how authorities have been able to cope since 1973 without revaluation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said, English domestic ratepayers are likely to have a 9 per cent. increase in their bills.
The period allowed for appeals was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). Although this will run to 15 September, the Scottish Office has spent nearly £100,000 advertising the appeals machinery. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) aptly pointed out, there may well be a two-year period of uncertainty about the amounts that have to be paid. No wonder that another constituent wrote to me suggesting that the Secretary of State for Scotland might be taken before what was called the Race Relations Board because the constituent thought that the Secretary of State was doing down ratepayers in Scotland.
The Minister knows that I had correspondence with him at the beginning of the year concerning an article in the Glasgow Herald about disparities north and south of the border. The Minister's reply to my letter dated 30 January was a marvel. He concluded by saying:
At the present time we cannot say with certainty how the results of the coming valuation will be perceived … People must have the chance to consider the results of the revaluation and the new appeal provisions must be given a chance to work before anyone can conclude that there remain significant valuation problems to be resolved.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) tonight, I wondered what we had been doing in debates on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) Scotland Bill. He made many speeches during consideration of that long Bill, in the course of which the Government promised that the legislation was going to sort out all the anomalies, except for the zoos. We wait for this legislation to bring comparability between the two systems. The Minister on a number of occasions turned down a suggestion that I made that one cannot have two separate systems of valuation north and south of the border and expect uniformity as a result.

Mr. David Marshall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I missed most of the debate because, in common with some other hon. Members, I was until recently entrapped in the Standing Committee which is considering the Transport Bill.
My hon. Friend referred to anomalies. I should like to give him one example in my constituency which emphasises the point particularly well. It is the case of a lady who advises me that she has an empty yard with no buildings on it; she is what is commonly referred to as one of the show people. She keeps a caravan in the yard for six months of the year, and then is out and about in the country as one of the show people for the remaining six months. Her rateable value has increased from £390 to £2,000, an increase of over 500 per cent. What sort of anomaly is that?

Mr. Craigen: I can only say to my hon. Friend that we were told that the derating of caravans would help sort out these problems.
I saw a press report that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) had got quite


excited about remarks in the Glasgow Herald that the Solicitor-General was "dumbfounded" by the increases, and that the right hon. Member for Stirling was "outraged". My hon. Friend described them as a couple of chocolate soldiers. He does a disservice to soldiery in this country. I think that they are more like a couple of chocolate smarties. We awaited the rebellion on the Government Back Benches tonight. In fact, I saw a report that the hon. member for Dumfries was to lead a deputation to see the Prime Minister, no less. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, and he sounded more like the grand old duke of York: he went up the hill, and now he is taking the troops back down again.
Conservative Back Benchers are stuck with the past actions of their Ministers in relation to revaluation and yearly reduced rate support grants. This is hardly the time for them to complain about those matters, to which they consented. We are indeed facing a crisis. The Government should at least restore the cuts that they have made this year, of all years with revaluation, in the rate support grant orders for Scotland.
That would help a little with the enormous bills that domestic ratepayers in particular, but also many commercial ratepayers, will face in the coming year. The situation is horrendous for ratepayers. I am seriously worried about the state of local government in Scotland because, as a result of this operation overload, the Government are imposing more burdens on the rating system than it is capable of bearing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): We did not need tonight's debate to make us more aware of the concern and deep anxiety that is felt in Scotland on the subject of rates. There has been considerable seriousness on the Conservative Benches tonight on this issue. On the Opposition Benches, on the other hand, there has been much frivolity and laughter. If we needed proof that this debate was an opportunist attempt by Opposition Members to take advantage of ratepayers, their attitude and behaviour in the Chamber tonight provided that proof.
The concern that ratepayers feel is shared by the Government. It is important, therefore, that we have a chance—as the debate has provided—to put the matter into perspective and to canvass the problem. Many points have been raised, but the thread to have come through the debate most strongly is that the rating system is unsatisfactory. We have never made any secret of our dissatisfaction with the system, and I shall say more on that later.
We start, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) rightly said, from the fact that rates are at present the system by which we finance local government. I wish, in the light of that, to look at the revaluation and the points that have been made about it.
I was surprised by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who seemed to suggest that there was no reason for the revaluation. He also seemed to say that the wisdom that came after the event, and certainly after one had left office, led him to believe that there were other ways of doing it, and he put forward a number of different ways by which he thought it could be done.
Labour's shadow Minister of State, when the right hon. Member for Govan was shadow Secretary of State, said in July 1982:
The Minister should make it clear now that there will be no more flirting with this halfway house and parboiled non-solution.
Those were the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about a mixed system of revaluation. He went on:
He should tell us that there will be a proper revaluation in 1985–86".—[Official Report, 28 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1195.] That is the revaluation about which we are talking tonight, and at least the hon. Member for Garscadden has had the honesty in recent months to make it clear that he does not take the view that this revaluation is wrong.

The first main question to be asked tonight was: why the revaluation? I do not want to go into all the basic reasons for revaluation, except to point out that revaluations as a whole do not affect the total burden of rateborne expenditure. They share out that burden according to individual property valuations. It is important in such circumstances that those valuations must not only be fair but up to date. That is why we have always had regular revaluations.
It is interesting to remember that we have had revaluations in 1961, 1966, 1971, 1978, when again there had been a two-year postponement, and now in 1985. In Scotland we have revaluations regularly by statute. It is important to realise that that is different from the English system, where there are revaluations at the discretion of the Government.
Several hon. Members have called for a postponement. I have already made the point that the date of the revaluation was set in the order in 1982. That was already a postponement. The House decided at that time that it would postpone the revaluation until now.
I think that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) was the only Member who raised the possibility effectively of a postponement or a cancellation at this stage. To cancel or try to postpone a revaluation after it has been effectively completed would be a practical impossibility. We would be saying to those who have gained, "Whatever the valuer thinks about your position, you will have to go on paying more." They might have good grounds for appeal, and that might have implications for the rating basis.
Also, to postpone the revaluation at this stage, once local authority budgets have been drawn up on the basis of what the revaluation has achieved, not least in terms of the resources element, would throw local government finance in Scotland into total chaos. Neither the local authorities nor the ratepayers would thank us for doing that.
In regard to the effects of revaluation, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) fairly pointed out that the average figure for England for 1985–86 will still be higher than the average rate expenditure in Scotland, the figures being £429 in England, compared with £397 in Scotland, despite the fact that we have had two revaluations since the English last had theirs. The real burden in terms of rates lies in rate poundage and not in revaluation.
I have to accept that there are variations. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) produced examples which we all have to take seriously. If there is unfairness in any valuation that has been arrived


at by the assessor, there is a system of appeal which we brought up to date in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984. That is available to allow people to test the assessor's views in the court.

Mr. Craigen: My real question was: how did the authorities in England cope when they last had a revaluation in 1973?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that valuations do not affect how authorities cope, because the authorities receive the money that they want, based on the rating base that they find. What has happened, I suspect, in England as much as in Scotland is that there are people who are sitting on valuations which are well out of date and which probably require them to pay levels of rates which are highly unfair.
The overall balance within the revaluation transferred the burden from the industrial to the domestic ratepayer, the reverse of the last revaluation. Overall, the commercial effects were basically neutral. That became apparent to us in the autumn.

Mr. Bill Walker: Rubbish.

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend may say, "Rubbish". He dislikes averages, but we have to look at the overall position. The overall effect on commercial valuations was effectively neutral. He raised one or two examples. Even within his constituency there are commercial operations, such as, for instance, the bakery in Dunkeld road in Perth, which will have a reduction in its valuation of £3,085. All I will say once again is that we have to consider a revaluation in terms of the balances that it creates.
When it became clear to us in the autumn that the main burden was falling on domestic ratepayers, we took action immediately, through the domestic rate relief and reduced industrial derating, to halve the effect of revaluation and the rate support grant settlement on the domestic ratepayers. Only later, when we saw the effect which the budgets of local authorities would have—the fact that, once again, we would see local authorities overspending—did we realise that we had to do more. We increased the domestic rate relief by a further 3p — overall a multiplication of eight times the previous level.
Many people may have scoffed at what they called the 3p increase. It is worth considering what that is worth to the individual ratepayer. On a valuation of £500, £40 is met by domestic relief on the rate bill. On a valuation of £2,000, £160 is met by domestic relief on the rate bill.

Mr. Home Robertson: The extra 3p does not come to that much.

Mr. Ancram: This includes the whole 8p. For the average ratepayer in Scotland it is a subsidy of roughly 11 per cent. on the average rate bill. Taken against the increases that are likely, especially in areas which have low rates and have spent within guidelines but still have high values, the subsidy will aid those ratepayers—in many cases, by more than 50 per cent. of their increases. To scoff at those increased subsidies is not worthy of Labour Members.
The hon. Member for Maryhill talked about the rate support grant. He seemed to forget that domestic relief is part of RSG. That rate support grant has now been increased by £42 million over last year's amount. The total

of domestic relief has been increased by £88 million. It is worth considering that the cost of revaluation to the domestic ratepayer out of the total changes this year was £90 million, £88 million of which has now been met through domestic relief. Despite the variations, it would be arguable—

Mr. Donald Dewar: No.

Mr. Ancram: Those figures are available. Despite the variations the Government have effectively dealt with the whole cost of revaluation.

Mr. Dewar: Not the whole cost.

Mr. Ancram: Within £2 million of the whole cost of revaluation.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I cannot give way, because I have only two minutes left to speak.
The basic problem is that two thirds of the increase of 17 per cent. in domestic rates is applicable to local government overspending. The effect of revaluation and RSG settlements accounts for 6·5 per cent., and the rest of the 17 per cent. is due to revaluation.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I give way. I misread the time previously.

Mr. Dewar: The point has passed to some extent. The problem is that, however much the hon. Gentleman may plead his case, it will carry no credibility, because people will look at the bill which they will have to meet in the end. People are really suffering from the cuts in the rate support grant settlement that have been forced on them, with the support of the rebel Government Back Benchers, during the past few years. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to help, he will, as we have urged, remove some of the unreasonable burden which has caused the whole system to creak and reach the point of collapse. The general thrust of the cuts which his policy represents have created real problems for ratepayers of every kind.

Mr. Ancram: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is making a case for an increase in the needs element of RSG. Is he seriously suggesting that if there were an increase in the needs element of RSG, in the majority of authorities in Scotland it would go to the ratepayers, or will it go — as is most likely — to increase expenditure? [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Govan, would stop and listen, he might discover that things have moved on since the days when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.
Let me make the point again that the basic reason for dealing with the problems of the domestic ratepayer through the domestic relief is precisely that that relief goes individually to the domestic ratepayers and helps most those who have the highest valuation. Those who have been hardest hit by the revaluation benefit most from the domestic relief. It fits hon. Gentlemen ill to mock the fact that very large sums of money have been put into this. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, when the bills come in those who feared very high increases will find that the Government have helped them.
Turning to commercial ratepayers, I believe that what has been said in this debate shows that within the variations very serious problems arise. If those


commercial ratepayers believe that increases of the kind about which we have heard tonight are unfair, they are entitled to take those on appeal against the assessor and require him to test his proposition in the courts. I hope that hon. Members who have mentioned this possibility will look at the way in which we improved the situation last year, not least by the accelerated appeal procedure. I hope that that will be tried in the weeks and months to come.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned the proposition of a special financial deal for commercial ratepayers. I must say in all honesty that there is no machinery; it would require primary legislation. I must ask him this question: what would happen to those who gained in that neutral balance? Would they be allowed to keep what they had got? That could not be done in any way that could be regarded as fair.
Finally, I turn to the basic question of where we go from here. A number of my hon. Friends have put forward various suggestions. The Government are listening to and looking at all the suggestions that are coming forward at this time. We have never made any secret of our dissatisfaction with the rating system or of our determination to make improvements in the way that local government is financed. Despite our disappointment that no agreed solution emerged from the very thorough and comprehensive examination that we ran before the last election, we have continued to work towards discovering a better way.
As was announced last October, well before the results of revaluation were known, we have set up a ministerial study, in which I am involved with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment. I would not wish to pre-empt the consideration that we are making in that review. It follows from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today that we are determined to find an agreed solution to the problem. We believe that the system that we have at the moment is unfair and discriminatory. Some of the anomalies have been highlighted by the revaluation. I do not believe that there is any easy way in which solutions to this problem can be found, but our determination remains undiminished.

Orders of the Day — Newspaper Industry

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On 4 May 1984 I had the honour to initiate an Adjournment debate on the newspaper publishing industry. I make no apology for coming forward tonight, 11 months later, to propose basically the same subject yet again because of what I see as the great difficulties connected with the printing and composing unions. They seem to have got stronger while management has been bashed time after time. I believe very much that the industry is now being subjected to industrial anarchy, and I think it is a very important point to make.
We have to bear in mind that 69 per cent. of people now read a daily newspaper. Recent statistics show that 38·3 million read a daily paper, 35·3 million of them taking a popular paper and 3 million a quality paper. The average readership of a Sunday paper is now 33·2 million people. It can be safely said, therefore, that any strike or loss of copies by shortfall affects many people.
Some of us recently fought a campaign against VAT on newspapers and on the cover prices, as we saw it as an attack on learning. I believe that denying people the automatic right to buy the paper of their own choice is much the same. I do not knock the regular circulation wars between the papers, but I consider it intolerable when regular availability at every local newsagent of a particular paper is no longer assured because of union interference. The culprits are always, I am afraid, the National Graphical Association and the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, SOGAT '82, which continue to kick the newspaper industry for petty political points. They do not understand the number of people they are affecting. I do not mean just newsagents, who do not get paid when they do not have the copies to be sold, but all other people involved who want to know what is happening in society. They can listen to local and national radio and watch television, but the permanent word comes from the local or national daily paper, and if they cannot get that, they feel let down, and rightly so.
Every time one has an industrial stoppage, effectively one is bringing about an increase in the cover price. Both prestige papers such as The Times and popular papers such as The Sun have fought back with large-scale advertising in the former and mass circulation in the latter. However, large increases in the cost of production and cover prices have reduced the number of people buying more than one paper. That must be bad news for the industry.
I said last year that the industry was fighting to survive. Eleven months later, sadly, I see no change to report to date. The numbers of days lost through industrial action in the past six years are horrific. In 1979, 640,000 working days were lost. Incidentally, 600,000 were for The Times alone. In 1980, 128,000 were lost, in 1981 13,000 were lost—that was quite a reasonable year—in 1982, 15,000 were lost, in 1983, 30,000 were lost and in 1984 the provisional figure is 27,000.
Let us look at the number of stoppages in the newspaper industry for each of the past six years, which is equally bad, and embarrassing and shocking because it is affecting the industry. In 1979 there were 17, in 1980 there were 17, in 1981 the figure improved, going down to 13, and in 1982, it went down to 12. But up the figure came again in 1983 to 24, of which four were in March and four in


November. In 1984 the figure was equal to that of 1983, although the industry was supposed to be improving, self-regulating and watching itself for the future. There were 24 stoppages: four in May, six in July and four in October.
Stoppages are caused for a variety of reasons, no doubt, but they can be costly to the companies concerned. The Financial Times lost £10·1 million in 1983 through one of those kamikaze stoppages. In 1984 it lost £1·3 million in revenue and 2 million copies were lost in that 10-week dispute. That is appalling. In 1985, to date, the Financial Times has already lost 166,000 copies. On 14 March, 49,900 copies were lost. On 15 February, 36,225 copies were lost.
Therefore, the industry is certainly not healthy and alive and kicking, in the way that I would like it to be. Hon. Members would not be far wrong in considering Fleet street industrial relations as in a state of anarchy.
I trace the root of the problem back to November 1983, to the Stockport Messenger group, where there was thuggery on the picket lines, but, for a change, a united front by the newspaper companies, which sued the NGA for maximum damages under the Employment Act 1982. I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Employment to his place on the Front Bench. Action was taken under the Employment Act because of the unlawful industrial action of union members in halting production of national newspapers on 25 and 26 November. Believe it or not, an estimated loss of £10 million was caused by strikes against Mr. Eddie Shah.
It is important to consider what is causing the problems. They are often small incidents of which people may not always take notice — yet they cripple the industry. Between January and February 1984, a dispute involving 550 SOGAT clerical workers halted publication of The Times and The Sunday Times. The origin of the dispute was the appointment of a member of the supervisory section of SOGAT to the position of picture librarian—supposedly a post for clerical branch members.
On 29 February 1984, all London editions of national newspapers were lost because it was the day following the so-called TUC day of action demonstrating solidarity with the trade union movement against Government action at GCHQ. On 12 April 1982, there was no London printing of the Daily Express and the Daily Star because of a dispute involving SOGAT publishing staff working in a warehouse. In June and August 1983, the Financial Times lost 59 days because of a dispute involving the NGA.
The number of stoppages, their duration and the consequential financial losses to national newspapers during the past five years include the following. In 1979, The Times was out between 1 December 1978 and 19 October 1979; in 1980, there was no Financial Times between 5 December and 15 December; in 1981, The Times was out between 25 September to 1 October; in 1982, The Daily Telegraph was out between 17 November and 27 November; The Times was out again from 20 December to 31 December.
It was not too bad a year in 1983, but the figures for 1984 are shocking—and they have been updated since I last spoke in an Adjournment debate on this matter. The Times was out between 13 January and 1 February; The Observer on 26 May; the Financial Times on 5 July; The Guardian on 9 July; The Sun between 13 July and 28 July; and The Daily Telegraph on 11 October.
There is no doubt that the industry is in a difficult state, and for some strange reasons. On 24 October the dispute at The Times, which had not published for two days, was about a fifth press needed to increase output. The NGA was offered 70 more jobs to man the press, but instead asked for more pay for its existing workers. The Newspaper Publishers Association received a request from print union leaders on 29 September for a 12 per cent. pay rise. Quite correctly, Lord Marsh said that the claim would not be considered until industrial action at the Financial Times and The Evening Standard was called off. He also said that the employers would not negotiate under duress. At that time the Financial Times had already lost 1,250,000 copies. That dispute needs to be put on the record.
There was more trouble on 28 December at the Financial Times. The management expected to take a tough line and may even have decided to suspend machine room workers — the reason was that there was leap-frogging in the joint press room agreement being sought between SOGAT and the National Graphical Association.
On 5 January there were, yet again, problems at the Financial Times. They arose over a 48-page edition. The NGA did not want such a large edition and it claimed that it broke an ACAS agreement. The disagreement was underpinned by substantitive negotiations on pay and manning and a new sick pay scheme. All that the Financial Times wanted was a joint press room. However, the NGA wanted to narrow pay differentials between its members. In the composing room its members were to earn £700 a week, but in the machine room it was £350. That is a large disparity, but both figures are incredible.
The Times lost two editions, on 22 and 23 October 1984, as a result of disputes. I understand that 525,000 copies were lost on both nights. Between 1 September 1984 and 28 February 1985, the Daily Mail lost 5·6 million copies in total. In the same period, The Guardian lost slightly fewer than 3 million copies. The management of The Guardian refer to these problems as "production difficulties". A spanner can fall into a machine accidentally or by design.
I am not criticising the unions, but there are great problems in the industry and it is time that someone revealed them. The Times group lost £40 million during the 11-month closure of 1978–79. Some disputes may last only a day or two but the result can be catastrophic for the industry from which I come and about which I care. I spent two and a half years working in both printing and publishing for Mr. Robert Maxwell. I watched the industry from the inside just as much as other hon. Members.
Fleet street suffers continually from a distribution shortfall and something must be done about that quickly. I must blame the unions for the shortfall.
The greatest bill that Fleet street has to pay — the wages bill—is liable to rise by 12 per cent. It amounted last year to £530 million and the unions want a 12 per cent. increase without any reduction in manning levels. This is an industry which I consider to be overmanned.
There is fierce competition among the newspapers that are on sale. Each national newspaper must depend on regular publishing, and that is a feature that I want to see. Price rises must be on the horizon, because every time there is a dispute or a strike the price of the newspaper may have to increase.
All our daily and Sunday newspapers need to remain competitively priced, but that is becoming impossible with


the high wage bills that they have to meet. The perpetuation of the casual worker — a regular in Fleet street who is protected under the Employment Protection Act 1975 and who has a contract of employment — is putting the entire structure into great difficulties. I have evidence that some casual workers are receiving more than £700 a week. On a Saturday night they can earn £250 for a one-night shift.
The managements of all the newspapers must tighten up the conditions that apply to the casual worker. The casual worker should be paying tax and national insurance and meeting all the requirements that would normally be expected of someone in employment. He should not be paid if he has a fictitious name. I understand that Mickey Mouse and even Ronald Reagan have been listed as working on Saturday evenings for Sunday newspapers.

Mr. John Evans: There has been evidence in the past of Mickey Mouse, Errol Flynn and Sir Galahad, for example, being employed casually in Fleet street. However, this is something that the newspaper publishers allow and welcome. If they want to stop it, why do they not do so? The means of stopping the practice are in their hands, but they do not use them. Obviously they are satisfied with the practice.

Mr. Bruinvels: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am calling for managements to stop the practice. I am grateful to him for supporting my call.

Mr. Evans: I am not supporting anything. I am merely pointing out what needs to be done.

Mr. Bruinvels: The proprietors must co-operate to tighten things up and stop casual workers from nipping from one paper to another, perhaps doing the first edition of one and the third edition of another, which is all too easy when they are all based in Fleet street. Incidentally, I understand that during the strike at The Times the strikers helped to put out The Guardian from the same building.
The fact that there are so few proprietors has been criticised, and I know that the NGA feels this sincerely. That criticism may be justified to some extent, but how many people can afford to own a national paper? Robert Maxwell, with whom I am no longer associated, had the necessary funds, but he took his time trying to get a national newspaper and in 1984 spent £113,400,000 purchasing the Mirror group. Only today Fleet Holdings received a bid from United Newspapers Publications, owner of Punch and various provincial magazines. I understand that it was seriously considering a merger but that after discussions with Fleet Holdings the idea appeared to have no merit. No doubt we shall hear more about that in weeks to come.
I am concerned about the wages bills, which run to tens of millions of pounds. The proprietors must be tougher with the unions and there must be no climb-downs in the future. Plenty of people want jobs and can be trained, although I appreciate that that takes time. Proprietors must unite against the growing abuses by certain trade union members. A daily paper should be reporting the news out in the big world, not providing the main industrial relations story for every other paper, as The Sun has done in the past week.
The unions are destroying this great industry, and I find that very disappointing. Have they no shame? All too frequently, the industrial stoppages in the industry show

the unions betraying the trust given to them by the proprietors who employ them and the people who support and buy their papers. The unions must face the fact that the industry is grossly overmanned and natural shrinkage is needed in the work force.
The industry is also overpaid. By taking such large pay rises, employees in the industry are not creating jobs but stealing jobs by not allowing other people into the industry. At column 713 of Hansard for 4 May 1984 my hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Department of Employment, now Paymaster General, rightly identified the main problem as the closed shop, but 11 months later the closed shop is just as effective as it was then. In 1985, as in 1984, a newspaper proprietor cannot employ whom he wants because the unions act as an employment agency. If one does not keep in with the union one's job is on the line, but if one co-operates one has a job for life. Like a dynasty or a legacy, the sons and grandsons of union members have first option on any vacancy notified by the employer. Of course, it is good to introduce someone to the company, but he must get there on merit and not just because of whom he knows. Retirement provisions are also not applied and many people over the age of 65 are still working in the industry. I do not criticise that, but it is interesting to note.
An unfair monopoly exists which should be ended now. Why should power rest with a small number of people who did not put any money into the paper in the first place? I really worry about the NGA, which I regard as the greatest offender in insisting on a tight pre-entry closed shop. Through the closed shop and the tight control that it maintains, the NGA is crippling the industry. Fair competition is denied and the advent of the new, key technology is hindered.
Industrial relations in the newspaper industry could not be worse. I blame both sides for that, but any stoppage now could finish a daily paper. I talked to the Newspaper Publishers Association today and it told me that, between 1 January and 31 August 1983, £7·1 million and 21 million copies of daily newspapers were lost and that, during the same period in 1984, £7·9 million and 59 million copies of daily newspapers were lost.
Closed shops in the newspaper industry protect only those in the industry and deny the opportunity for others to come forward. The print unions are too powerful and insular. From 1 November 1984, closed shops were supposed to be subject to employment legislation. That is especially important when a union member might be expelled, perhaps unreasonably, from the union, thus losing his job. I want newspaper proprietors to invoke the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 to help themselves and to stamp out threatened industrial action when non-union members are providing services, such as at Warrington with the Stockport Messenger. There should be no blacking of work from non-union sources if it is good work. Companies must seek injunctions or damages from the union concerned.
Last Tuesday, 1 million copies of The Sun were lost because of a dispute between the NGA and SOGAT '82. Meetings were held by both unions in the middle of production and without permission, as The Times said on 20 March. The row is about the new plant for The Sun in Tower Hamlets, where it is planned to print the News of the World and The Sun, and has been going on for two years. The machinery is sophisticated, but I cannot see why the unions should object to going down to Tower


Hamlets. Rupert Murdoch's organisation, News International, has spent £72 million on the plant. The row also involves certain plates, which were subject to a union agreement.
On Thursday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in business questions to provide Government time for a debate because, yet again, newspapers were at risk. He suggested this debate. I was worried, as I saw evidence of yet another long dispute. Until tonight, when the NGA and SOGAT '82 at The Sun kindly went back, the paper had lost 23,280,000 copies and the London edition of News of the World had lost 2,962,000 copies. How on earth can any paper carry on in such circumstances?
Having spoken to Peter Stephens, the editorial director of The Sun, it is clear to me that such continued industrial action will be catastrophic to the industry. Since June 1984, The Sun has lost 75,840,000 copies. The row involved plate breaking in the machine room, an activity operated jointly by the NGA and SOGAT '82. Was there really a major problem? I do not think so. The NGA claims renewed presence of its members in the day machine room. That is fair, but I want papers such as The Sun to be free and able to manage. Full-time employees will still be guaranteed their jobs after the move. There will be natural wastage, but there is in all industries.
Contrary to what the union says, Rupert Murdoch has created and saved jobs since he took over. When he came in, there were 8,100 employees. In 1984 there were 11,273. That shows a commitment to the industry. Circulation in 1969 was 750,000—in 1984 it was 4·2 million. He pays well. In 1969, £10,700,000 was spent on wages. That increased to £165 million in 1984. Compositors and piece-rate workers earn up to £50,000 a year. A typical pay slip for a compositor on a three-day week doing 24 hours is £700. A machine operator who works three days a week and a few hours on Saturday, totalling 21 hours, receives £300. It seems to me and, no doubt, to most people that The Sun is looking after its employees.
I understand that the National Graphical Association bosses have outside jobs. I am told that one has a car repair shop and another runs a few supermarkets. That is interesting, and I am glad that they can do two jobs at the same time.

Mr. Evans: Most Tory Members do.

Mr. Bruinvels: Industrial censorship was enacted when there was an editorial on picketing.

Mr. Evans: I expect that the hon. Gentleman has two jobs.

Mr. Bruinvels: I have not.
On 27 June the employees effected a complete ban on an edition of The Sun, which lasted three days, because they did not agree with the editorial. It is outrageous that an editor cannot express his own view. The Budget edition — the major chance for its more than 4·2 million readers—

Mr. Evans: They only look at the pictures.

Mr. Bruinvels: They might also look at the pictures. That edition did not come out, despite all the work done by the NUJ, people in the Institute of Journalists, and researchers who were brought in to make the top edition.
Tonight the paper was published in its usual form, and I welcome it back. It states
You've seen the rest, now read the best!
I understand that during the dispute, the other proprietors, did not keep solidarity—dare I, as a Conservative, use that word?—and say that, with a shortfall of 4 million copies a day, they would not give in to union abuses. Robert Maxwell immediately authorised the additional printing of the Daily Mirror in excess of 1·5 million copies, the Daily Express published 1 million extra copies, and the Daily Star an extra 600,000.
I would have thought that they should have stopped the unions from taking advantage. Do not the unions realise that they are cutting their own throats because, with other papers printing extra copies and providing greater interest, they may not attract their readers back? After three days, brand loyalty may be lost. That worries me. Why did not the newspaper proprietors stick together? I would have thought that the best thing for them to do was to fight as a united force. I have heard of awful incidents in print rooms, such as fires, torn rolls of print and broken plates. I urge The Sun to sue now for the 23 million copies lost. There are injunctions against SOGAT '82 and the NGA and damages worth £500,000.
The newspaper industry is great. I revealed how many people read a paper. Hon. Members should consider circulation figures, the power of unions in conjunction with editors, and the need of people for their papers. The circulation figure for The Sun is 4·1 million, the Daily Mirror 3·5 million, the Daily Express 2 million, the Daily Star 1·6 million, The Daily Telegraph 1·3 million, The Times 456,000, The Guardian 471,000, the Daily Mail 1·8 million and the Financial Times 166,000.
The circulation figures for Sunday papers are The Mail on Sunday 1·6 million, News of the World 4·6 million, Sunday Express 2·5 million, Sunday Mirror 3·4 million, Sunday People 3·2 millon, Sunday Telegraph 712,000, The Sunday Times 1·3 million, and The Observer 744,000. That shows how many people need, read and rely on papers, and why unions are seen to be taking advantage.
The provincial side of the industry is going well. The Wolverhampton Express and Star has experienced some local difficulties. It has agreed its copy, and writes and edits directly on to computer screens but is waiting to transfer the copy directly into print, without it passing through the hands of NGA compositors. If it can be done there, why cannot it be done in Fleet street? The row there will continue. That paper has set a good example and is to be admired.
As for provincial papers, there are 1,300 titles, 7 million daily sales and 9 million weekly sales. In an interview today, a representative of the Newspapers Publishers Society said:
Every night of the week one of our members suffers some industrial action.
It is such a commonplace occurrence that they do not keep figures. There is a dispute procedure where members are supposed to report when there has been a breach. The reports are prepared for a fortnightly meeting, but they are not as accurate as they should be. During the first eight months of 1983, 21 million copies were lost; in 1984, the figure was 59 million. The financial losses are incredible.
We have a saviour in Eddie Shah, who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and to get the investment. He believes in and supports the new technology. He wants a free team with greater creativity, and he wants his magazines and newspapers to be in full colour. He believes that the editor should have the freedom to edit, which strikes me as a sound proposition.
As was reported in the Financial Times of 19 December 1984:
There is no single section of British industry where the new technology poses a more dramatic challenge than in newspapers.
We have a Minister for Information Technology. We have the technology, and I should have thought that the Fleet street unions would be prepared to accept that technology. But they have successfully blocked it for a long time. I assure members of the NGA—I have regular meetings with newspaper proprietors and publishers —that jobs will not be lost, apart from redeployment to other parts of the industry and through natural wastage. When the Portsmouth News moved three NGA compositors into sub-editors' jobs, immediately 73 National Union of Journalists members went on strike. The sooner we have one union, the better for the entire industry.
I want newspapers to report the news as it is. I want editors to comment on the news as it affects us, or should affect us. Proprietors should put up the funds, managing through delegation, and unions should put it together as good "inkies".
The contents of a tabloid front page are, of course, the easiest way of selling a paper. I am afraid that we must have sex, or headlines such as, "TV pop star divorced" or "TV pop star engaged"—

Mr. Evans: Who needs to have sex?

Mr. Bruinvels: It always seems to be on the front page of the papers. There also seems to be something about religion every time, with a bishop saying something. Anything to do with Lady Diana or any member of the royal family is there, and there must be bingo. That is the magic formula. I want to see decent papers selling because they have a good story to tell. I want the newspaper industry to act responsibly. I want the staff to have the right not to join a trade union if that is their wish. I want the union barons to be told that they have had their day, and that, although they should look after their industry, they will not reign supreme in future. I want the unions to act responsibly for a change. I do not want management always to have to pick up the tab for what the unions have done that night or the night before. If SOGAT '82 or the NGA care about the industry, they should put their money where their mouths are—

Mr. Evans: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman regaled us with stories about members of SOGAT or the NGA receiving £700 or £300, sometimes for a three-day week or, by the sound of things, only for a Saturday night. Does that not show that the NGA and SOGAT are looking after their members very well?

Mr. Bruinvels: It is fair to say that they are looking after themselves. I say that they are looking after themselves too well and are forgetting those who must pay the bill—

Mr. Evans: It is called free collective bargaining.

Mr. Bruinvels: If they are receiving too much money, and the paper cannot be published because the proprietor

cannot afford it, or the price of the paper has to be increased, I would not call that a long-term investment in the industry.
I do not want management to come cap in hand, on its knees, giving in at the last moment to the unions. I want it to be strong for a change and to try to get the new keyboard technology accepted. It has already been well tested in the provinces, and I want Fleet street to take it up. I want SOGAT 82 to trust the proprietors when they say that no one will lose his job. The unions should be proud to represent craftsmen and professionals. They should be loyal to their newspapers. In my constituency, the Leicester Mercury has just such a relationship, which is why 74 per cent. of the households in Leicester buy it.
The unions should also remember us as customers and as readers. As I said earlier, if The Sun is unavailable for six days, brand loyalty can be lost for ever. If circulation falls, jobs will be put in jeopardy in the news groups as well.
To keep up circulation, the unions must be prepared to guarantee maximum output, but do they care? They are so interested in milking the company that they forget about the readers. Anyone can strike when they are still getting paid, or know that they are too valuable to be lost for good. I admire the printers for their work. The trouble is that they can step out of one job and join another paper— the Fleet street casual. They can nip down Fleet street, do a casual job, avoid tax and earn an exorbitant rate of pay, but, if the proprietors joined together, they could black troublemakers who did that. I should like to see employers doing the blacking for a change.
In case hon. Members are worrying about phoney names, we should ensure that no one with a phoney name is taken on—that should assure the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Evans: They have been doing it for years.

Mr. Bruinvels: That may be so, but there must be a change, and I am calling for one.
The proprietors should keep a central register and no one should be paid unless it is clear who they are. The union anarchists and troublemakers in the unions should go. Companies should show increasing readiness to take legal action against unions that take industrial action.
As I said in Litho Week, not that long ago, I fully support the NGA document "The Way Forward" about the new technology. It makes a lot of sense. There will be some redundancies, but I hope that there will be very few. I want to see a production unit resulting from the amalgamation of the NGA, the NUJ and SOGAT. If they do not agree, some of our daily papers will be lost for ever. The unions must unite in helping to produce good papers.
We have a free press, and the freedom of choice to choose the paper that we want. The proprietors, publishers, editors and unions must work together to ensure a newsworthy, accurate and readable product paper —a paper that comes out on time. No paper or article should be blacked again, and no editorial policy should be dictated to by the unions. The country knows that Fleet street is overpaid, overmanned and overprotected, and this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
The country needs to be well informed. The unions have a moral as well as a contractual duty to co-operate with the editor. There is no time for political dogma. The newspaper industry will die unless it puts its house in order. There is no time to lose.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I start by declaring an interest in that I am sponsored by the National Graphical Association. I thought that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who I know takes an interest in the print industry, might have declared an interest. He fills those bits of the British press for which the NGA sets the type, and the Press Association provides the copy. He regularly contributes to the dial-a-quote system, or rent-a-quote system, and is always ready to provide a quotable quote to fill the space between the adverts, or, in the case of The Times, between the adverts and the semi-nude women.
I welcome tonight's debate. The hon. Member effectively re-read the speech that he made in an Adjournment debate last year, and is therefore already on record as having an interest, and not only on the basis of his previous employment with Mr. Maxwell's publishing enterprise, which was not then related to the newspaper printing industry. From the point of view of the trade union side, I welcome somebody with an interest in the industry, even if it is, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, a somewhat confused interest.
The print and newspaper industry has different parts and technologies, and different systems in industrial relations. There is a common thread through print houses, the provincial newspapers, the national newspapers, in that there are two main print unions, SOGAT '82 and the NGA. The NGA organises the compositors, the people responsible for the art work, and for general type setting in the industry. It is one of the last almost exclusively craft unions in the country.
One of the difficulties about creating one union for print workers is the division of the industry into print, craft and process sections. I believe that the difficulties are beginning to be fully appreciated by all sides. The mergers in 1982 that created the present structure of the National Graphical Association and SOGAT have largely been completed. It is the earnest hope of everybody who takes an interest in the printing industry that the two unions will merge and that eventually they will be joined by the National Union of Journalists, although that is a remote prospect. Nevertheless, I am conscious of the fact that the NUJ is meeting this week in national conference, and anything can happen at NUJ conferences. Hope springs eternal.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I am not clear about whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that the two print unions should be joined by the NUJ or whether he is saying that the NUJ should be joined by the two print unions.

Mr. O'Neill: It is likely that within the foreseeable future the two print unions will come to some form of arrangement. It is less likely that the NUJ will enter into such an arrangement at an early stage. I think it will come eventually, but there are problems, to which I shall refer at a later stage, that put obstacles in the way of a merger. If we can get rid of those obstacles we may eventually have one union for all those who work in the printing industry.
The most recent problem to confront the industry was created by the Budget, namely the imposition of value added tax on advertisements in newspapers and periodicals. About 19 national titles, 1,644 regional titles and 6,408 magazines are produced within the United Kingdom. The nationals account for about 35,000 workers

and the regionals for about 68,000. The magazines have a different basis for counting their work force. About 6,000 of those who work for the national newspapers are members of the NGA, while about 10,000 of those who work for the regional newspapers are members of the NGA. Employment throughout the United Kingdom in the industry is about 136,000. It is a major industrial producer of newspapers, periodicals and magazines.
The imposition of VAT at 15 per cent. will have quite an effect on the viability of this part of the printing industry, in particular on the viability of classified advertisements which in the main are paid for by individuals. The receipts from classified advertisements amount to about £800 million, or 36 per cent. of all advertisements. Fishing rods, old televisions, bicycles and the like are regarded as classified advertisements and the Budget will lead to the imposition of VAT at 15 per cent. on those advertisements. In regional newspapers and local newspapers that are paid for — that is, not free sheet publications — classified advertisements account for about 20 per cent. of total revenue.
Classified advertisements are used by small businesses and the individual trying to sell an item. The Government have introduced a start-up scheme, but the turnover of many small businesses is not yet big enough to warrant a VAT number and therefore they cannot pass on VAT charges. That is a restriction on a business in its early stages. The £50 million in VAT which is expected to be collected in a full year as a result of the change will cause more of a problem than it is worth. The Chancellor should think again. Detailed debates on the Finance Bill will provide an opportunity to discuss that. However, I have no interest in participating in that exercise.
The financial sector will also be affected. Banks, insurance companies and finance houses do not have arrangements for VAT and they will have to bear the cost of VAT in future.
The Newspaper Society, the organisation responsible for representing provincial newspapers suggests that about 3 per cent. of the income from advertising will disappear as a result of the imposition of VAT on newspaper advertising.
The imposition of VAT will endanger some of the firms which have invested heavily in new technology for the newspaper industry. By that new technology, more newspapers can be printed and excess capacity can be accounted for through free sheets. To ensure the maximum utilisation of the new investment, as many copies as possible must be produced. The existing steps being taken by local newspapers with the NGA and SOGAT could be halted or interrupted by VAT.
Sometimes provincial newspapers and newpapers produced in Fleet street are confused. Two different types of newspapers are produced by different technologies and they cater for different markets. In the last two or three years about 30 agreements have been made in respect of the new technology between provincial newspapers and the NGA. The 30 companies involved publish about 50 titles. The scale of the operation is such that about 30 per cent. of all English and Welsh provincial newspapers are covered by new technology agreements. The expense of investing in new technology is such that the operations must be fairly large. We are talking about large runs and large papers.
The new technology is being phased in. At Portsmouth the final stage has been reached and a measure of


agreement has eventually been arrived at. The process has been painful. We have no illusions about that. Pride is dented and old attitudes have to be set aside. The agreement between the NUJ, SOGAT and the NGA ensures single stroking—that is on a sub-editorial basis —one finger of one hand sets the print for the runs. For that to be achieved, an arrangement has been made whereby some compositors have been trained by management to undertake what hitherto has been the job of the journalists in sub-editorial work. Unfortunately, in the case of the Wolverhampton Express and Star, in which a similar stage was reached, the management chose to renege on the undertakings that it would not introduce the final stage of the new technology without complete inter-union agreement. It sold the deal to the NUJ, as I understand it, on the basis of £15 per week. This deal has now been put on ice at the insistence of the TUC which acceded to the request of the NGA and SOGAT, which said that they were not prepared to countenance the deal because they had not been properly consulted and all the matters had not been raised.
I realise that the dispute involving the Wolverhampton Express and Star is a messy one, and I do not wish to go into all the details now. However, in Portsmouth a deal has been struck between the unions and the management, while in the case of the other newspaper the management has been breaking out and adopting tactics that have resulted in confrontation and litigation. This, I believe, has not been resolved to the satisfaction of management which has won what can only be called a pyrrhic victory in the courts.
Another settlement is in the offing in Bolton. From what I understand, the agreement is now subject to ratification. This may be the first deal for settlement on the basis of the new technology which follows on from the Portsmouth agreement.
The local newspaper industry is, therefore, moving into the final stage of acceptance of new technology. The Newspaper Society as yet is not entering into the national council for the training of journalists scheme with regard to sub-editorial training. The Newspaper Society has made a national decision not to participate in a scheme which has the backing of the NUJ and the NGA. This is regrettable, because it is evidence of a reluctance on the part of the Newspaper Society to accept new technology with anything like the commitment which the NGA has indicated. The hon. Member for Leicester, East fairly paid tribute to the document "The Way Forward on New Technology" which, although it is printed on pink paper, will eventually be regarded as a blueprint for the industry. We believe that this document will show the way.
The Newspaper Society is not as concerned about training as it should be. In respect of the apprenticeship scheme, it has done no more than reduce the indentured apprenticeship from five to three years. It has not followed the example of the British Printing Industries Federation, which covers the print shops as distinct from the newspapers, the general jobbing printers, book printers and so on. It has not established what has to be regarded as probably the most flexible form of training in any industry in respect of what used to be called apprenticeships. There are modular schemes in the industry which do not require age entrance qualifications. People above the age of 16 or 17 can come back for retraining and gain qualifications in new forms of technology using the flexibility of the modules. In many

respects, this will probably be regarded as a general example of training in industry. I hope that the Newspaper Society will follow this through.
I may seem to be making heavy weather of the point. I am stressing the fact that Fleet street does not train people. The national and main provincial papers traditionally do not train people but cream off the best of those who are willing to move from the old fashioned indentured apprenticeship scheme or the new modular scheme. Because those newspapers do not train, they recruit by what might be described as a process of graduation.
That has meant in some respects that the path towards new technology in Fleet street, and on the part of other national titles, has been more restrictive. Indeed, many Fleet street papers have turned their faces against certain aspects of the new technology. For example, the hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke of the Daily Telegraph moving to a new site. But that paper will not be taking up the new technology; it will use a modern form of the traditional technology because it finds that system better from the editionising point of view. In other words, that is regarded as being better for changing during the run. Perhaps the Daily Telegraph is not a good example to cite in this context because it has such a wide and thorough sports coverage.
The Minister, being a football fan, will appreciate that people in the north who read papers such as the Daily Mirror are not greatly worried about the fortunes of London football clubs, unless northern clubs are involved in matches. They prefer to read main reports in their own newspapers. Often, those reports are inserted in the middle of runs by what is known in the trade as editionising. It is an effective means of dealing with insertions of that sort.
The Fleet street newspapers have not shown a great willingness to move towards the new technology in that respect. Nor are their traditional structures such as to afford many opportunities for training because, as I say, they have not been in the business of training.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke at length about the latest dispute at The Sun. I mention that as an example of the problems that create interruptions to print runs and the non-appearance of newspapers. My understanding of the dispute is different from his, and, if I tell the House what I know of it, that may supplement his account of the proceedings.
Metal plates which are used in the production of The Sun and other newspapers have a tendency on occasions —if there is something wrong with the quality or with the operation in which they are being used—to break. This causes a considerable hazard to the people working nearby. At The Sun there has been a great deal of anxiety about that and various investigations have been carried out by management and the work force with, I must say, varying degrees of enthusiasm.
The work force eventually decided that enough was enough and said that a chapel meeting woud be held during working time, which was the traditional way of expressing disagreement with the way that things were going. There was nothing untoward about that. It did not mark the end of western society or the start of a bloody revolution in Fleet street. It was the traditional means by which the workforce expressed disapproval.
There is a process of double locking. The plates are fitted and locked and the rollers are turned for a couple of revolutions. The plates are then tightened again to make


them doubly secure. This double locking process takes time. It was time in that case for which the management was not prepared to make allowance, and problems arose about bonuses and so on. The meetings of the chapel went on. Management said that the workers must go back to work or they would be laid off. Not only did management lay off the men in the machine rooms, but it laid off the rest of the print workers and, indeed, everybody but the administrative and clerical staff.
It was three and a half to four days before national officials were given a hearing, because The Sun management said that before union discussions started there would have to be a return to work, with guarantees that no further interruptions would take place. There then followed 12 to 14 hours of negotiation which has resulted in the production of today's newspaper.
So far as I know, everyone who was laid off, apart from those directly involved, has been reimbursed in full for the days' wages that were lost. A study group has been set up between health and safety executives from SOGAT, the NGA and the management. Subject to discussions with the local chapel officials a report will be produced. At the end of the procedure, provided agreement is reached, the work force who have so far not had any reimbursement may well get their money for the days when they were not working.
Hon. Members may draw whatever conclusions they wish from that agreement. Certainly it seems to be well balanced. It has got the presses rolling again and has got reimbursement for the unfortunate victims of the dispute between the union and management. There is a prospect of a complete resolution of the dispute. That is an example of how problems arise and can be resolved.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East seemed to suggest that in the next round of industrial relations legislation there should be a ban on strike action by print workers. Perhaps I am putting words into his mouth; he may not have gone that far. The logical conclusion, if that is the right phrase that one could use, given the cerebral processes of the hon. Member, is that we would expect some kind of ban on strike action if he were to draft the next industrial relations legislation. God forbid that he should be given the opportunity.
The problems which confront the print industry and which in many respects are encapsulated by the latest dispute can by and large be resolved. When managements seek to ride roughshod over the unions, as happened in The Times when management sought to introduce new work practices without consultation, they invariably run into difficulty and many papers are lost. When they take the measured pace that has been adopted in the provincial newspapers and go step by step by consultation and discussion, they can make tremendous progress in a relatively short period in taking advantage of new technology.
Last weekend no less a journal than The Economist paid a back-handed compliment to the NGA when it said, in regard to the introduction of new technology to the newspaper industry, that it was probably inadvisable for newspaper proprietors to have NGA members doing sub-editorial work because the NGA was a harder-nosed, more effective negotiating body than the National Union of Journalists.
It would appear that in Fleet street over the years the print workers have been able to get reasonable rewards for

their efforts. Those rewards have been freely agreed by management. There has not been a dramatic increase over the past six years because of free collective bargaining under the Conservative Government. The print workers have achieved their reward because of a long-standing historical arrangement whereby the craft and the skills of the print workers have been acknowledged and their union officials have been able to get a wage struck.
I appreciate the fact that problems arise. The hon. Member for Leicester, East has thrown statistics about —many of them used in a previous debate and merely updated—but has not given anything like the reasoned approach that both sides of the industry require. We see in the provincial newspapers, away from the public gaze, that deals are being struck, new technology is being introduced and expansion is occurring. We see in the Fleet street and national newspapers that there is a concentration of ownership, a narrowing of choice and lost opportunities with respect of new technology. Often newspaper owners are concerned not so much with the process but with using the newspapers as a mouthpiece for their beliefs, prejudices, ideas—call it what you will. Editors should have the right to editorialise or to write editorials. At the end of the day, these editors have only the right to say what their proprietors will allow.
The Times under Harold Evans provides ample evidence of the fact that an independently minded editor was not acceptable to Mr. Murdoch and was sacked. It may be that Government Members preferred a new editor, and that is their privilege. The previous editor sought to exercise his independence and, because it was not in keeping with the views that the newspaper's owner sought to express, the editor was sacked.
We need to do more than look at the narrow focus of industrial relations, which the hon. Member for Leicester, East tried to do. We need to examine other aspects—who owns newpapers, how they should be controlled and the guarantees which, in the case of The Times, we thought had been established and would provide an editor with the independence that a national newspaper such as The Times was supposed to enjoy. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. If the hon. Member for Leicester, East had dealt with that aspect, we could have had a more meaningful discussion about a healthy and free press.
The National Graphical Association is proud of its record of speedy and effective co-operation with the management of local newspapers to ensure that new technology is brought in and that, as far as possible in our economic climate, it is not the fault of the association's members that newspapers go under. If other newspapers in Fleet street adopted a constructive attitude towards the newspaper unions, as the provincial papers have done, there would be a transformation in the fortunes of many of the papers that seem to be under difficulty.

Mr. John Evans: According to the Order Paper, the debate sponsored by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is on
The future of the newspaper industry.
I assumed that we would debate what was in The Times today about a takeover bid being launched by another organisation for Fleet Holdings. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the future of the newspaper industry


is of great concern. The threats that are often placed on newspaper groups by takeover bids of one group against another should be the subject of proper debate.
I thought that the mind of the hon. Member for Leicester, East might have been exercised by the fact that
United"—
the group seeking to take over Fleet Holdings—
already owns 20·1 per cent. of Fleet, most of which it bought in January from Mr. Robert Maxwell, publisher of Mirror Group Newspapers.
I had thought that that was the sort of issue that we would debate, that perhaps we would discuss the great issues involving the right of reply, or that when people suffer at the hands of a newspaper they should be given the right to put their point of view in the newspaper concerned, or the role of the Press Council and whether it should be strengthened, or the lobby system, which is causing concern at all levels. Those are the sorts of subjects which I would have thought we could discuss. We certainly could have discussed the problems in Manchester, where there is concern about the closure of a great printing works because of problems concerning contracts with certain newspaper groups, and the redundancies and unemployment that will occur in Manchester over the printing of northern editions.
We did not get any of that. What we got—and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) obviously knew a thing or two in this context—was a long litany of industrial disputes, the blame for all of which, according to the hon. Member for Leicester, East, should be placed upon the shoulders of the NGA and SOGAT '82. The purpose of outlining those disputes over the last three or four years to the House of Commons escapes me.
In that context, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan on his speech, and I am sure that when NGA members read the record of this debate they will be well satisfied with the case that my hon. Friend made out tonight in their defence.
The other thing that puzzled me as I listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, East was whether he was the official spokesman for the Newspaper Society or Mr. Murdoch, or was simply a self-appointed parliamentary spokesman dabbling in affairs which presumably he thinks will get him further publicity — although after listening to most of his comments I rather suspect that very few newspapers will want to publish any of them. I certainly have not the faintest idea why he bothered to read out the circulation figures of various newspapers. What purpose that served is absolutely lost on me, other than perhaps to prove that The Sun and the News of the World are at the top of the league of newspaper sales. Well, we already knew that.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East is one of the Conservative Members who are loud in their praise of the Prime Minister, all her works and all she stands for. From time to time the right hon. Lady makes it very clear that market forces and the voice of the market should prevail in all things. What the hon. Gentleman overlooks is that in whatever goes on in Fleet street in the newspaper industry the newspaper trade unions are entitled to defend themselves and their members at all times. The unions and the workers are part of the market forces.
I would point out a contradiction in terms in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He denounced the trade unions in Fleet street on the ground that the industry is overmanned

and the men overpaid, regaling us with stories of wages of £700 a week. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's stand on most issues, I would have expected him to praise the NGA and SOGAT '82 for doing an absolutely splendid job on behalf of their members in getting them £700 a week. I only wish that my union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, could get that for our members throughout the country. I am sure that my colleagues in the union would be absolutely delighted.
Finally, I want to refer to the stories which the hon. Gentleman told us about part-time or casual workers signing on in Fleet street under the pseudonyms of "Mickey Mouse", "Errol Flynn" and various other film stars. This is not a new story. It has been going the rounds for many years. Perhaps the Minister will address some of his remarks to this matter. If that practice takes place, the people to be condemned for it are the newspaper proprietors, the Treasury and the various tax inspectors, who are well aware of it. I do not know whether it is still going on, but, if it is, they are also aware that it has been going on for many years. I well recall a row in the parliamentary Labour party back in 1977 or 1978, when the issue came up. Many of us in the parliamentary Labour party denounced the suggestion that, provided it did not happen in the future, a moratorium would be declared against those who had committed what were criminal offences.
Let me make it clear that we in the Opposition deplore such practices and believe that people should pay their proper taxes and not be allowed to get away with not doing so. If there is criticism, it cannot be directed at the trade unions. It is a matter for the Treasury and the newspaper proprietors, who could stamp out the practice, tomorrow night if they so desired, but it is obvious that they do not wish to do so. They wish to let it continue. Presumably they allow it to carry on because it is in their interests to do so.
Not much has come out in the debate apart from the splendid defence by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan of his trade union colleagues. I hope that the Minister will say just a few words about the Treasury and the Revenue presumably being defrauded of many thousands of pounds by those awful individuals who are signing on for £300 or £400 a night under the pseudonym Mickey Mouse.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am grateful to all my hon. Friends who have come to listen to this important debate. They should join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on raising it. This is not the first time that he has raised the issue; he has drawn the House's attention on several occasions to something that probably matters to more people each day than almost any other issue that can be discussed here. People rely on the newspapers for their information. They rely on them for buying and selling goods. Many rely on the newspapers for their employment. We should remember, as my hon. Friend said, that more people might be able to rely on the industry for their employment if conditions were such that people could enter it as publishers. Therefore, there would he more titles, and more competition. Some newspapers would go out of business. I see no reason why it is any


purpose of Parliament to protect every title that presently exists. We want to make sure that there can be free and fair competition within the industry.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) made one or two unwarranted attacks on my hon. Friend, and I suspect that he led his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) into similar behaviour. Given that it is the time when the final editions of the national press are being put to bed, it may be a sign that more of us should be put to bed. Perhaps we can conduct the rest of the debate in a more open and friendly way.
I had not realised that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who had suggested to my hon. Friend that he should raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund. I shall not be buying a drink for my right hon. Friend for some time.
I do not intend to give a direct answer to the point made on what may be connivance between workers, employers and possibly even trade unions when people apparently work under certain names so that their income tax is not deducted and their national insurance is not paid. My suspicion is that the situation has changed over the past two years, but I shall make sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North are passed on to colleagues in Government. He will receive a reply spelling out the situation, which could also go to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Clackmannan.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan managed to put a more acceptable face on the NGA than almost anyone else could have done. I had my suspicions, and they were only confirmed when I looked up the hon. Gentleman in The Times guide. I see that he is really a member of the General and Municipal Workers Union, and the white collar section at that. I recommend to the NGA that it at least doubles the contribution that it makes to him for his advice and the way in which he puts across its case.
I should like to refer to the most significant points that underlie the debate and which—

Mr. O'Neill: Before the Minister goes further, to save myself any extra, if not undue, embarrassment, I should like to say that under the sponsorship arrangement, with which I am sure he is well acquainted, any moneys from unions that sponsor hon. Members go to the local Labour party, not to the individuals concerned. There is a certain nicety there, which should be made clear for those who take an interest in these matters but are not always as well informed as I am sure the Minister is.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not see any reason why I should be more precise in my remarks than the hon. Gentleman was when he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. The honours, perhaps, are even.
I am sure that the House will return to these issues on a number of occasions. I do not want to launch into what might be seen as a reasonably standard attack on the unions. I certainly do not think that the Fleet street chapels are under the control of the national executive or the national union. Most people realise that they are independent, autonomous groups of people no more tied to Socialism than I am. Many of them live in my constituency, and when I am canvassing they tell me with pride that they have contracted out of the political levy and they often say that they are rather keen on earning a good deal of money.

Mr. Evans: What has that to do with the future of the industry?

Mr. Bottomley: I thought that we were talking about the people in the industry. The underlying issue is whether the trade unions are doing what their members want. In most cases, they are doing that. The questions whether there is a framework within which they can negotiate and whether there is a reasonable balance of power between employers and employees will also be covered in the next debate.
In the newspaper industry, there is a common acceptance of the priorities for the industry, but different interests in moving towards that. It is a matter of reconciling different union interests and trying to get a better developed common interest between employers and those working in the industry. We must always remember that those who will decide the future of the industry are not those working in it but the customers. It is the response that the industry gives to the demands of its customers that will determine the number of jobs, the pattern of production, the people involved and the industrial agreements that will best meet the needs of the customers.
It is sad, but true, that industrial relations practices in Fleet street, especially in the printing industry, can be among the worst in this country. When things go well, they are probably among the best. The difficulty is that today's newspapers are of interest today, but not tomorrow. If production is lost employers find themselves in a great deal of difficulty and feel that the bargaining strength is not balanced. I do not believe that Government should step in and try to make special industrial relations arrangements for the newspaper industry. However, we recognise that on occasions resistance to bully-boy tactics in the industry has not been as effective as it might have been. Government legislation — or Parliament's legislation—

Mr. Evans: Government legislation.

Mr. Bottomley: Legislation is passed by a majority in the House. It is no better and no worse than motions passed by a majority in a union conference, or even the Labour party conference.

Mr. John Major: It is better when passed by the House, especially when the Conservative party is in Government.

Mr. Bottomley: I shall draw a line and start with a new paragraph.
Legislation has given employers the means to redress the balance of power. The provisions of the Employment Act 1982 on closed shop balloting came into force in November 1984. That is more important outside Fleet street, because in Fleet street the unions are relatively solid.
Examples have been brought to my attention of disciplinary action against members who have declined to come out on secondary action, which is unlawful, and also examples of some of the fines that union branches or the national union have tried to impose. I suspect that that will come out into the open and it will be difficult to defend the scale of penalty imposed. However, it will also be difficult to justify the weakness of employers in not standing up for their employees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) said, we are not criticising only one side of the industry for there is fault on both sides— [Interruption.]

Mr. Fallon: But more on one.

Mr. Bottomley: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) wishes one of us to say that we recognise his presence in the Chamber. No doubt he will be participating in future debates as much as in this one.
We have seen the virtual legal extinction of the closed shop, although current legislation does not outlaw it. It is still legal for an employer to operate with a pre-entry closed shop and to make membership of a particular union a condition of employment. Where the closed shop is unballoted, there is nothing to compel an employee to remain in the union.
Legislation affords members of unions some protection. It is unfair if an employer dismisses an employee in a closed shop if he has lost union membership as a result of unreasonable expulsion or if there are complaints pending or proceeding before a tribunal.
Other factors are the balance of industrial power and protection for individual union members. It is important to recognise, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan did, that within the industry some of the hopes that people had before 1982 are being resurrected and that the idea of getting the NGA and SOGAT together, which as an observer I believe would make a good deal of sense for the members of both unions and would be welcomed by the proprietors and publishers, is likely to move forward.
That will not happen in a smooth progression because life is not like that. There are issues to be negotiated and bargained over. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington occasionally encourages us to recognise, these are matters where those concerned need to use their own perceptions of their own interests and to come to a deal

which they believe provides the best balance in meeting those interests as well as providing a way forward for the future.

Mr. Fallon: These are not matters for the Government.

Mr. Bottomley: If my hon. Friend were to allow me occasionally to continue, he might hear me say explicitly as well as implicitly that when the Government start to describe these matters in the way that he accepts he should welcome it instead of commenting that they are not even for the Government to think about.
One of the greatest challenges facing the newspaper industry—and in this instance the Government—is the need to adapt to the introduction of new technology. I am a great believer in those in the industry — those representing the employees as well as the proprietors or managers — working together and trying to move forward together. I am sure that members of the newspaper industry have worked in a similar way to that outlined in the new technology report by the heavy electrical machinery economic development committee.
I shall pursue with a great deal of interest the movements in the newspaper industry. I look forward to seeing whether without Government interference the industry can put right the wrongs which have properly been drawn to the attention of the House this evening and whether more often the unions and the proprietors can manage to put a face on the industry that is rather like the one put forward by their defender this evening, the hon. Member for Clackmannan. I am grateful to those who have attended the debate. I hope that the newspapers do not feel that they will have to change their final editions following it. I look forward to more discussions on the subject in future.

Orders of the Day — Wages Councils

Mr. Christopher Chope: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a debate on wages councils. I welcome all my hon. Friends who have entered the Chamber to participate in it. I note that there is only one Opposition Member present, the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), to discuss with us this important subject. A debate about wages councils is one about job opportunities and employment. It is the belief of Conservative Members that unemployment levels can be reduced. It is our conviction that wages councils contribute to unemployment, and that brings us to discuss the issue this evening.
I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I congratulate him on sitting through another debate at this early hour of the morning. I hope that in about three hours time he will be able to reply with the same freshness and lightness of touch that he exhibited in the previous debate.
Last Thursday was a historic day, when the Government's consultative paper on wages councils was published. That paper is another important landmark on the road to even more employment and a freer society. I know of no Conservative Member who is other than critical of the current operation of wages councils, although there are sincere differences of opinion about whether abolition or reform is the better course. Whichever one favours, however, I am sure that all agree that the Government should have a free hand. The freedom to create new job opportunities through deregulation should be cherished by every Government and it is sad that hitherto their freedom of action has been inhibited by International Labour Organisation No. 26, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
The opportunity to deratify that convention comes but once in five years. In the Budget debate there was much discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of being "boxed in". In my view, the Government should avoid being boxed in any longer by that convention, and I welcome the positive statement in the consultative paper that, subject to the outcome of consultations in conformity with ILO rules, the Government propose to deratify the convention in June 1985. It should be remembered that the United States and Japan—and, indeed, the Soviet Union—are not signatories. When the convention is deratified Parliament and Government will be free to make their own decisions in the best interests of the nation.
I will try to set out some of the basic facts about wages councils. About 260,000 employers in 400,000 establishments employing 2¾ million workers are controlled by 26 wages councils. The employees affected are mainly in the service trades of retailing and catering—more than 1 million in each—plus 400,000 employees in industry, about 250,000 of whom are in the clothing manufacturing industry. Up to two thirds of the employees covered by wages councils work part time—a fact often overlooked by those who argue for retention of the wages councils—and about 80 per cent. are female. Total expenditure by the taxpayer on wages councils is £4·2 million, but the cost to the employers, although unspecified, is clearly substantial when one considers the vast bureaucratic overlay that the councils produce.
The wages councils establish minimum rates of pay for about 11 per cent. of the employed labour force. Had I been alive in 1909 I should probably have supported the establishment of the wages councils. Indeed, as one who is concerned about poverty I should probably have been on a National Anti-Sweating League rally campaigning against people working long hours in unpleasant, unhealthy and unsafe conditions for low wages. The early wages councils governed tailoring, paper and cardboard box making, chain making and the finishing and mending of man-made lace, and the people affected by them were mainly full-time workers in manufacturing. Looking back, I think it is fair to say that those people were vulnerable to exploitation if not actually exploited.
Circumstances today are completely different. Our welfare state, with unemployment and supplementary benefits, guarantees a minimum standard of living for each person according to his needs. It is no longer a matter of working in a sweatshop or starving. Today no adult is forced to go to work. He can stay at home and live on supplementary benefit if he so wishes. Indeed, the operation of the poverty trap caused by high taxation and national insurance payments often results in people opting to live on supplementary benefit because they are better off not working. Family income supplement is a valuable resource to working families in relative poverty.
Wages councils must be justified according to the cirucumstances of today rather than by a sentimental attachment to history. If they did not exist, would we wish to set them up? I think not. No Conservative or even the most hard interventionist-Socialist would want to establish anything like the present system, but would prefer a national statutory minimum wage.
There is something illogical in saying that there should be a minimum wage of £50·25 for a 40-hour week for an adult shampooist, but that for a flax and hemp worker it should be £65·10, for a boot and shoe repair bench hand it should be £77·65 and for a general assistant in the retail food trade it should be £75·50. Arbitrary distinctions are being made by these bureacratic quangos called wages councils.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the Wages Councils Act 1959 and the Employment Protection Act 1975, the Fur Wages Council (Great Britain) has made the Wages Regulations (Fur) Order 1976 (Order Z (96)) revoking the Wages Regulation (Fur) Order 1975 (Order Z (94)) which ordains that the rate paid for hand fleshing 100 skins of the American opossum shall be £2.38 but that for the Australian opossum it shall be £2·75? Does he think that the Government should be ordaining such matters?

Mr. Chope: No. I congratulate my hon. Friend on reading so clearly a document measuring about 4 ft by 2 ft, the print of which is minute.
Who would argue that an assistant in a small shop in a village where rents are low and travel-to-work costs are negligible should be assessed as requiring the same minimum wage as an assistant in a large city? The flexible market approach is the one that works in practice. Many small shopkeepers cannot afford to take on additional staff, because their customers cannot support the required minimum wages.
Those who advocate the abolition of wages councils are caricatured as hard-hearted men and women who want to


do down the workers and grind their noses in the dirt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wages councils are not concerned with poverty. There is now little overlap between poverty and low wages because of the welfare state. Single people with few dependants, or married women, tend to be in the low hourly rate of pay bracket, often working part-time. They should be paid at a rate determined by the market rather than according to a rate laid down by a wages council in the belief that such a rate will deal with poverty.
Many people believe that wages councils are pricing people out of jobs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said that on 27 July 1981. Lord Thorneycroft said so in a debate in the other place on 17 March 1982. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses said so in an excellent recent publication entitled "Still Priced Out". Many distinguished economists said that. On Friday a shoe repairer in my constituency said that because of the impact of wages councils he could not employ two apprentices whom he would otherwise wish to employ. A mass of anecdotal evidence supports the view that wages councils are pricing people out of jobs.
The arguments against the minimum wages policy are the same as those against wages councils. Two distinguished black American economists, Professors Sowell and Williams, said that the federal minimum wage law in the United States leads to unemployment concentrated on the young, unskilled, inexperienced, female and, even more severely, on ethnic minorities.

Mr. Fallon: Blacks.

Mr. Chope: I used the expression "ethnic minorities" which was chosen by those two economists to describe those whom my hon. Friend describes as "blacks". Their point was that despite the good intentions behind minimum wage legislation, it creates unemployment among those who are weakest in the market place.
The opponents of the abolition of wages councils suggest many arguments. One is that abolition could lead to increased trade union activity. I would not object to that if it resulted from the abolition of wages councils. It is also said that employers like councils, which is why they should be retained. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said during the Budget debate that he was reinforced in his view of the importance of wages councils
by the fact that a large number of employers do not want the wages councils to be abolished. They believe that they do a good job for … 2·5 million … and … bring about good industrial relations."—[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 52.]
That argument must be scrutinised carefully. Insight into the reality of the position is available by reading the publication by Professor Clegg in 1972 of his book
The system of industrial relations in Great Britain,
He referred to what happens when there is pressure to abolish individual wages councils. He states
In most instances in which abolition of a council has been under discussion, the employers have been more reluctant than the unions. This is because they feared that without legal inforcement of the rates of pay and hours of work, some of the smaller firms might resort to undercutting in both wages and prices and their organisations would not be able to put a stop to it. The unions with their membership concentrated on the large firms were confident that they could ensure that voluntary agreement would be followed there and were less worried about the small fry.

The Confederation of British Industry and other employers' organisations representing the large employers—it is the larger employers who are represented on wages councils rather than small employers — benefit from the operation of wages councils because the wage councils restrict the labour market.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Could that be the reason why the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said in the House on 19 March that, as an employer, he did not want the wages councils to be abolished because they protected his business from competition?

Mr. Chope: That may well be the reason. We may hear that quote in the House in future.
Most people accept that wages councils have an impact on youth employment. A possible solution that I have heard discussed is that people aged between 16 and 18 might be removed from the operation of the wages councils, so that the latter affected only the employment of those aged more than 18. But that would not be an answer to the problem, because many employers who take on youngsters aged 16 and 17 are thinking to the future. They say, "We are taking on an apprentice. Will we be able to employ him when he is 18 or 19?" A small business may be inhibited from doing so because it will say, "When he is 18 or 19, he will be subject to a wage level laid down by a wages council." The problem would not arise with a 16 or 17-year-old. The Government should consider a wider area of the impact of wages councils on employment rather than only the impact on youth employment, important though that is.
Wages councils have outlived their usefulness. They are clearly an impediment to jobs. There are two options in the discussion paper put forward by the Government: one is to recognise that wages councils are obsolete and that they should be abolished; the other amounts to a recognition that they are obsolescent, and that in their dying moments there should be an attempt to revive or reform them and bring them up to date. The latter would be a futile exercise doomed to failure, because the wages councils have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant to today's markets.
Next year is 1986—

Mr. John Evans: That is the first thing the hon. Gentleman has got right tonight.

Mr. Chope: It will be the 75th aniversary of the introduction of wages councils. I hope it will also be the year of their abolition.

Mr. John Evans: In his Budget speech on 19 March the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
My right hon. Friend will be issuing a consultative document about the future of the wages councils later this week. Wages councils destroy jobs by making it illegal for employers to offer work at wages they can afford and the unemployed are prepared to accept. This applies in particular to small employers and to youngsters looking for their first job.
That statement so enraged me that I shouted so loudly that Hansard picked it up:
The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
The Chancellor continued:
The document will cover a number of proposals for radical change, including complete abolition. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Education and Science will be issuing press notices later today giving further details of these measures.


I then intervened to say:
Bring back sweatshops." —[Official Report, 19 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 794.]
I was incensed by the Chancellor's remarks for two reasons. First, there is not a shred of evidence to justify the outrageous statement that wages councils destroy jobs. The Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Employment and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) have not offered any evidence to support that contention. The hon. Gentleman referred to anecdotal evidence—whatever that means. It probably means what is heard when a guy in a pub, having had two or three pints, regales his audience with stories that he is inventing in order to impress one of his listeners who he knows is a Member of Parliament.
Conservative Back Benchers have for 18 months carried on their disgraceful campaign to abolish wages councils, and I suspect that they have been egged on by the Prime Minister, but they have never offered anything like a shred of real evidence that wages councils destroy jobs. All that we have had is the big lie technique, in which Dr. Goebbels specialised during the period of the Nazi party in Germany, which is that if someone is going to tell a lie he tells a huge one, and, if he keeps on repeating it for long enough and loud enough, perhaps people will start to believe him.
The second and more important reason for my anger is that I believe that sweatshops will be brought back if wages councils are abolished. There is no doubt that sweatshops will again rear their evil head, and that leads to the most significant question that has to be asked in the continuing debate about the future of wages councils. I make it clear to the Minister and to Tory Back Benchers that we in the Labour party do not accept that a debate at 3 o'clock in the morning is the way that important matters of this nature should be considered.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Labour Members?"] Only one of my hon. Friends is present, but many of them volunteered to speak in the debate. I pointed out that there was little need for them to come to listen to the rubbish that we hear from the Tory Right-wingers—rubbish that we have heard for a long time—about wages councils.

Mr. Chope: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to be suggesting that the constituent who came up to me was a liar? I understood him to be saying that I was wrong to believe what that person told me.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman referred to anecdotal evidence. We all know what that means. It is significant that he did not offer one shred of hard evidence that wages councils destroy jobs.
We have to ask the question which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing; why were wages councils created in the first instance. They were first introduced over 70 years ago to eradicate the evils of the sweatshop. I urge all those hon. Members who seek to abolish the wages councils, and I urge in particular the Secretary of State for Employment, to read and bear in mind the speech of the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Winston Churchill, on the Second Reading of the Trade Boards Act, which created the first wages council. In particular, they should read and digest the following passage:
It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed"—

I impress this point on Tory Members—
that the workings of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil … where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst".—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
In fairness, I ought to read out what was said recently by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith):
I must tell the Government, as an employer, that I do not want the wages councils to be abolished, because they protect my business from unfair competition. They ensure that my competitors are required by law to pay the same minimum wage as I do."—[Official Report. 19 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 817.] Surely that point is germane to a debate on wages councils.
Further down column 388, Mr. Winston Churchill said:
where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration.
I repeat the earlier extract from Mr. Churchill's speech:
It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions."—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
That was the position in 1909. What is the position today? Twenty-six wages councils cover about 2·75 million workers. The wages paid to those workers are between £62 and £73, generally for a 43-hour week. I do not believe that even the most hard-hearted Conservative Member would suggest that between £62 and £73 is a king's ransom. The average statutory minimum wage paid to women in the industries covered by the wages councils is just over one half of national average earnings. The minimum wage for men is just over one third of national average earnings. In other words, the statutory minimum wage set by the wages councils is already less than the living wage which Winston Churchill described in 1909 as "a serious national evil."
It is the height of nauseating hypocrisy for well-heeled Tory Members of Parliament — barristers, lawyers, consultants and directors — to stand up and make speeches about wages councils fixing wage levels that are so high that they are ruining businesses. I suggest that those hon. Members ought to have the guts and the decency to tell the House and the country what are their average earnings in a year. I challenge every Tory Member of Parliament to disclose his earnings.
There has been no change since 1909. Mr. Churchill then said:
where you have … no organisation, no parity of bargaining"—
he was obviously referring to the lack of organised trade unionism—
the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst.
What has changed since then? The answer is virtually nothing. In the industries covered by the wages councils — predominantly the clothing and retail trades, hostelries and catering and such services as hairdressing and laundries—about two thirds of the work force are part-timers, while about four fifths of them are female. A substantial proportion are under 18 years of age, and a significant proportion of the total work force is made up of ethnic minorities. In other words, 11 or 12 per cent. of the nation's work force are not members of trade unions. Therefore, it is impossible for efficient collective bargaining to take place on their behalf.
To return to what was said by Mr. Churchill, where there is no organisation there is no parity of bargaining.


So will the good employer be undercut by the bad, and will the bad employer be undercut by the worst? The evidence clearly shows that that will almost certainly happen.
Paragraph 16 of the Government's Green Paper on wages councils refers to establishments visited and establishments underpaying. In 1981, 24,399 establishments were visited and 10,074 were underpaying. That represents 42 per cent. of the establishments visited. Similar figures are given for each year. The provisional figures for 1984 are 26,545 establishments visited and 9,461 underpaying — which is 35·6 per cent. of the establishments visited. More than one-third of the establishments visited have been underpaying their work forces.
Paragraph 17 lists the totals of workers underpaid and the assessed arrears. In 1981, 25,482 workers were underpaid and the arrears were £2,301,910. In 1984, 18,043 workers were underpaid and the arrears were £2,428,991. That is when wages councils are operating and when flouting statutory awards is a criminal offence. One can imagine what will happen if and when the wages councils are abolished and the sharks who criminally underpay their workers now are free to do as they wish —as some Government Members earnestly desire.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a system that costs more than twice as much to administer as it recovers in wages should be continued? The scheme costs about £4 million and recovers about £2 million. Is this really a worthwhile use of taxpayers' money, and is it an efficient system?

Mr. Evans: The expenditure is worth while, as most taxpayers agree. The establishments visited comprise only a fraction of the establishments which could and should be visited. The Government have encouraged the serious shortage of wages councils inspectors.
Mr. Churchill's third major point in that splendid column 388 of 1909 was:
where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration.
Those words sum up precisely the state of our nation after six years of this awful Tory Government's wrecking of our economy. In excess of 4 million people in the United Kingdom are searching for employment. Our manufacturing industry is collapsing. A major engineering firm in my constituency has just announced further redundancies. Britain, once the world's workshop, is now in substantial deficit in manufactured goods. The NHS, our education system, the nation's heavily populated urban areas and the inner city areas are collapsing. The Labour party, the other Opposition parties, about one-third of the Tory party, and almost every economic commentator and serious newspaper in the land call for a major initiative to combat the evils of mass unemployment. The hierarchy of the Tory party is obsessed with wages councils and their paltry wage awards.
The debate has an international dimension. It is instructive to go back to the origins of wages councils legislation. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Trade Boards Bill, Mr. Churchill made it clear that similar legislation was being enacted in most, if not all, of the Western industrial democracies. That development, subsequently encouraged by all the Western democracies, moved on until we established the International Labour

Organisation to regulate matters of this nature on an international basis. In other words, there has always been international co-operation on such industrial affairs.
Now, however, the Government are not only to set back the clock in Britain, but are seeking to set the clock back internationally by their commitment to deratify ILO convention No. 26. I am bound to ask: what will our EEC partners make of this step back into the dark ages, and what will the EEC commissioners make of this deratification in the light of the Community's competition policy? Will they allow future British sweatshops to compete unfairly against other more civilised European industries? Will not Britain be regarded as the Taiwan of Europe among our European partners and competitors? I am sure that Conservative Members wish that it was the Taiwan of Europe, with the same sort of wages and social conditions for the workers, but not for themselves. Conservative Members are something different, and the salaries that they earn are something different.
I deal next with what I understand is the Secretary of State for Employment's favoured option, that of retaining wages councils in some form or other, but removing young people from their protective cover, with the additional wheeze of altering the definition of young worker from meaning a person of the age of 18 to a person of the age of, say, 21 or even 22—an outrageous proposition, which is hinted at in paragraph 18 of the Green Paper.
Before the Secretary of State goes down that avenue, let me remind him and his hon. Friends that most parents in the country already feel that their sons and daughters have been cruelly betrayed by the Government, and that any move further to wangle the statistics relating to employment, which is a particularly nasty feature of the Government, will meet with a mountain of protest from youngsters, their parents and his own Right wing, which will not be satisfied except by complete abolition of the wages councils. The chances are that if the Secretary of State pursues that favoured option he will find few friends.
As I understand it, the main excuse for introducing such a retrograde step as removing wages council protection from young workers is that they would then be pricing themselves back into a job, something which we constantly hear from Conservative Members. The hard, unpleasant facts are that young people's earnings, expressed as a percentage of the adult rate, have fallen by more than one fifth since the Government took office. At the same time, unemployment among young people has rocketed. The proposition about pricing youngsters back into a job is eyewash, or it certainly has been up to now. If wages council protection for young workers is withdrawn, and at the same time the Government go ahead with their other heinous proposition of abolishing young people's rights to social security benefits, they might very well price young people back into a job—an unskilled, dead-end job without any prospects, for a starvation rate of pay.
Let me spell out now that if that sort of job is created for young workers it will only be at the expense of adult workers, and probably male adult unskilled married workers at that. Far from bringing down unemployment, it will merely transfer it to an even more vulnerable section of the work force.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman made the point that if we were to denounce the ILO convention we would be out of line with


our European partners, and he referred to the civilised approach which the rest of Europe would then have compared with what would prevail in this country. He went on to quote paragraph 18 of the Green Paper. Will he read the final sentence of paragraph 18, in which the Government say that in Holland the full adult minimum rate is not reached until the age of 23? How does he square that with what he said a few moments ago?

Mr. Evans: I was pointing out that the Government's latest squeeze might result in there being an increase in the age of those who come within the definition of "young worker." We cannot discuss the point that the hon. Gentleman raises without all the relevant statistics from all the European countries. I shall be happy, when we have a more wide-ranging debate, to discuss the issue in full, and on that occasion I shall have all the statistics to hand.
Apart from economic factors, moral issues must be considered when considering the future of wages councils. These councils have in the past protected the weak and the unorganised, have prevented the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable in society and have been an important bulwark against poverty wages.
The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned the statutory minimum wage and said that he did not agree with such a concept. Throughout the Labour movement, the question whether there should be a statutory minimum wage has always been a source of argument. I suspect, however, that many unions are now moving towards the acceptance of that concept. I admit, as a member of the AUEW, that I have disagreed with my union on the issue and have always believed that the measure of a civilised society is a statutory minimum wage.
Once wages councils are abolished and appalling sweatshop conditions return, as they undoubtedly will if the Conservatives continue in office, the horrors of privatisation will be visited on thousands of workers, not only in hospitals and Tory local authorities but in nationalised industries such as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Risley, a mile and a half from where I live. Exclusive Cleaning and Maintenance has slashed the cleaners' earnings in that establishment by more than £20 a week. Workers in other sections of industry are becoming horrified as they realise what the Government are up to.
Certain good results could come from the abolition of wages councils, though they are not the sort of results that Conservative Members want. In the short term it will undoubtedly be dreadful for those who at present have some protection under the auspices of wages councils, but in the longer term more and more workers will appreciate the benefits of trade union membership and collective agreements, which can protect workers from the activities of some of the most appalling employers.
The opening sentence of the Green Paper on wages councils says:
The Government attaches the highest priority to removing unnecessary obstacles to the creation of more jobs.
The greatest single obstacle to the creation of more jobs in Britain is not the peripheral issue of wages councils, but the evil policies of this awful Government. My recommendation is not to sack the wages councils but to sack this incompetent Government.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I must confess that I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) with mounting rage. It seemed that he was talking to a great extent about women workers. By implication he was outlining a situation where the women of this country are no better off, no better educated and no better able to fight for themselves than they were in 1909, a year in which, in spite of my not inconsiderable age, neither my mother nor my father was alive.
My interest in the subject arises unashamedly as a woman viewing an area which predominantly affects women's working conditions. It is generally accepted that some 2¾ million people are covered by wages councils; of those, 75 per cent. are women working in retailing, catering, clothing, hairdressing and related industries. The argument for retaining wages councils is plainly stated; they are seen as the only method whereby those covered by the councils are relieved of the problem that might arise from exploitation, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, North has so vividly outlined.
Since the opportunity is available under the International Labour Organisation agreement for a careful look at the situation, it would be irresponsible not to take advantage at least of the opportunity to examine what happens in this sector of the labour market and to study whether there is any truth in the allegation that the abolition of wages councils would result in a down turn in average wages from the minimum levels currently negotiated through wages councils.
I start from the point of being basically hostile to the idea of wages regulations. It has been said with demonstrable truth in another place that the foundation of all economic analyses is nothing more arcane than that prices affect quantities. If wages are increased, other things being equal, the demand for workers will be reduced at the margin.
Today what we seek is an increase in employment opportunities. My concern is all the greater since the evidence of research shows that when the costs of employment are raised artificially, the resulting unemployment affects females. I am not arguing against minimum incomes. No one could be more concerned than I am about overcoming the poverty trap, but I share with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the view that it would be much better to achieve that through the social security system than by the intervention of Government or Government-inspired bodies in price setting.
I believe that minimum wage levels are a disincentive to increasing employment opportunities. In the very areas where the wages councils operate, many of the industries which used to exist at the time of which the hon. Member for St. Helens, North spoke — the early part of the century — have disappeared, although it could well be demonstrated in a limited way that many of the skills required remain and are still marketable even today.
If we examine the female potential for job creation in small businesses, we can see immediately that the skills that many women have can, and could, be used to start new businesses. There are potential employment opportunities in all geographical areas, using the various skills currently covered by wages councils, which may well be stillborn simply because of the existence of the wages councils and the impossibility of meeting at the start


of a new business minimum wage levels together with the other restrictive practices that are imposed on potential new employers in regard to premises, facilities, time off and so on.
Many women today expect to return to work — if, indeed, they ever leave it—to supplement the family income. The experience of the present structure within wages councils is not good. Many women are not able to give continuity of service if they are married or caring for other members of their families. Because of this, employers see the costs of recruiting and training, together with other special provisions, such as the necessity to hold open a job following a pregnancy, as strong disincentives and counters to employment. This is particularly true of small business men.
In other words, wages councils, linked with some provisions—alas, within the Employment Protection Act 1975 — militate against women being offered jobs. I contend that, but for those constraints, it is the experience of employers that many women who face external family pressures would, nevertheless, be readily employed by small firms and would not be disadvantaged in such employment. This applies equally to the financial rewards that the women would gain and the individual arrangements that they would be able to make with those employers. Employers frequently make those arrangements to the mutual satisfaction of the women whom they employ and of their business, without discrimination of payment or of terms and conditions of work. Frequently, women employed under such flexible arrangements prove to be of excellent worth to employers, giving unstintingly and willingly of their time if they do not feel that there is some threat to them of a watchful eye to note whether they are to be judged on the legal constraints currently imposed by, for example, the wages councils. If the Opposition genuinely wish to improve job opportunities on an equal basis, it is crucial that this factor should be openly recognised.
Women are increasingly beginning to create small businesses—this is a more recent development—some of which might be termed cottage industries. Others, such as successful businesses launched by Anita Roddick, called the Body Shops—truthfully, such an initiative is not taken by a large number of women, but, nevertheless, that instance needs to be cited—prove that women have an initiative-taking facility which is beginning to be explored and to be shown to be highly successful in enterprises such as catering, hairdressing and clothes design and clothes and furniture making.
Women not only go in for those areas covered by the wages councils but now enter the high technology area, which, fortunately, is not numbered among the industries covered by the wages councils. Where such businesses can begin—often they begin at home—the conditions that would be imposed by the wages councils are sufficient to prevent them expanding and increasing employment levels.
It is not merely a question of minimum wages. Although all women expect and seek parity — they should get parity of payment for equal work —many—

Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is a scandal that the hon. Lady should argue such a case. Is the hon. Lady aware of the life led by working class women in the sense that in many ways they are protected by wages

councils and in many other ways they are incapable—for reasons that will not be known to the hon. Lady—of making inroads into small businesses or employment? The hon. Lady's approach clearly shows her complete inadequacy and her lack of knowledge of working class people who are trying to make their way through life in the difficult conditions presented by her Government.

Mrs. Rumbold: That is a disgraceful slur on women, whatever their origin.

Mr. Loyden: The hon. Lady is casting the slur on women.

Mrs. Rumbold: I certainly am not casting a slur on women. I certainly would not make such a sexist remark or choose to denigrate women, whatever their origin.

Mr. Loyden: The hon. Lady is denigrating women.

Mrs. Rumbold: I ask the hon. Gentleman to—

Mr. Loyden: The hon. Lady has no experience of working class women.

Mrs. Rumbold: It is very difficult to answer the kind of intervention that the hon. Gentleman is making, since it is quite clear that he is not willing to show the decency of allowing that women of any origin have the ability to move forward for themselves. We do not need to be supported indefinitely by the opinions or views of the male sex. This is the first time in my life that I have ever been moved to make such a feminist and pro-feminist speech. But I find that increasingly in this place the number of times men wish to tell women what they are capable of doing and what they should do with their bodies and their lives is becoming quite intolerable. I do not, nor do my women colleagues in this place, tell men how they should conduct their lives or what they should do with their bodies and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would wait while I finish making the point I had embarked upon.
I was trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the flexibility that women require in order to achieve success in both starting enterprises and continuing them is something that can be negotiated with both male and female employers, mercifully. I think that this is something that will increasingly appeal both to women who have not so many family ties and even more to women who today, fortunately, have the advantage of a better education and improved communications and of seeing how others can get a job which it is worthwhile to pursue through their contacts and can expand those contacts and those jobs if the terms that they work under are sufficiently flexible.
The arguments that led in the early 1900s and the early part of this century to the starting of wages councils—the exploitation of the low paid, the inability of home workers to negotiate proper rates of pay—simply do not apply today. I am amazed to hear that these arguments are levelled when in particular, the whole communications system in this country and throughout the world is so totally different that it makes the points about communication, low pay and negotiation quite irrelevant. It is as though the people who are employed through the wages councils or are looked after through the wages council were being judged incapable of managing without these bodies. This is simply not so. The wages councils today seem to me to be completely irrelevant since the communications media can provide adequate information to all who work about the right rates of pay and the right


amount of work to be done. Sensible arrangements can be worked out through the much more exposed system that we now have. It therefore seems to me that the wages councils have lost their relevance, in particular to those sectors of the female working population to which I have referred.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) would have carried a little more conviction if the Benches behind him had not been empty. I have often thought that Labour Members here have started to work a three-day week. They never seem to be here on Mondays or Fridays, and now it seems that they are not here in the middle of the week either.
The question that we have to consider is: are wages councils to be abolished, or, if they are not abolished, as everyone from the low-paid to the Institute of Directors is unhappy about how they operate at present, how should they be reformed?
There are three questions that need to be asked and answered about wages councils. First, do they in fact protect the weak, and would their abolition remove such protection? Secondly, do wages councils inhibit the creation of new jobs? Do they, as Professor Marsland argues
provide a haven we cannot afford for incompetent managers, inefficient employees and people in industry with the least capacity for innovation and enterprise?
Do wages councils seek to give job security but in fact just end up leading more people to social security? Thirdly, if wages councils protect the weak but also inhibit the creation of new jobs, what is the correct balance?
Conservatives favour the view that wages are a matter for employers and employees to negotiate according to the circumstances of the industry, with the minimum outside interference. Hence the repeal of schedule 2 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 by the Employment Act 1980 and the rescinding of the Fair Wages Resolution in 1983. However, until now, minimum outside interference has none the less presumed a duty on the state to seek to protect those who, for one reason or another, are in a weak bargaining position when offering their labour.
As Winston Churchill said:
But where you have … no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst … where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
Of course, there have been substantial changes since Winston Churchill was at the Board of Trade. The balance of bargaining power as between employers and employees was very different then, and there was no social security system as it is understood today. Many employees in the "sweated trades" then faced the alternative of either working at extremely low rates of pay or starving. Today, that situation has completely changed. The system of social security benefits ensures a floor below which no one need fall. Indeed, today often the two main problems affecting the low-paid are either the poverty trap, whereby a pay increase may, in certain circumstances, lead to a lower standard of living as a result either of having to pay more tax or of the loss of social security benefits, or the

unemployment trap, where in certain circumstances people are better off unemployed than in work. The question today is whether a better safety net than social security benefit levels is still needed for low-paid workers.
Before attempting to answer those three questions I should like to refer to a substantial misconception, which has to be cleared out of the way. It is the suggestion that wages councils and minimum pay levels are necessary to tackle poverty. There is in fact little correlation between low pay and poverty. The Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth — the Diamond commission — initiated research by Richard Layard, described recently by The Sunday Times as a leading Government critic, who concluded:
Of workers in the bottom 10 per cent. of income relative to supplementary benefit only one fifth were in the bottom 10 per cent. of hourly earnings. The reason is that the poorest workers are men with large families, many of whom earn a reasonably high wage, while most of those on the lowest pay are married women where earnings ensure that the family are not amongst the poorest … a substantial proportion of low paid employees are not in poor households, and a substantial proportion of the poor are not low paid.
The most recent available evidence, "Low Income Families", published by the Department of Health and Social Security, shows that, taking into account the effect of state benefits, only about 1·5 per cent. of families, the head of which was in full-time work, had a family income below the supplementary benefit level, whereas 14 per cent. of families, the head of which had been unemployed for three or more months, were below supplementary benefit level. In short, poverty is a problem not so much of low pay as of no pay. For example, pensioners and single-parent families with no pay are in the group with the highest incidence of poverty.
The misconception of the need for minimum pay legislation to combat poverty is further exaggerated by the insistence of the low-pay lobby to talk of low pay as a percentage of the average. The Trades Union Congress talks of a low-pay target of two-thirds of the average male earnings, and the Council of Europe seeks a minimum "decency threshold" of 68 per cent. of average adult pay.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): This Council of Europe problem keeps coming up, and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not need me to remind him that the Council of Europe has adopted no such thing.

Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
The substantive point is that it is ridiculous to talk of low pay as a percentage of the average, because if everyone were, for example, 10 times better off, the problem would be as intractable as ever. To make low pay a percentage problem simply means that it is just a matter of trying to keep up with the Jones's and, as even the Low Pay Unit is forced to admit,
a target based on the average represents an unobtainable goal".

It is also important to remember that since 1948 real pay has increased considerably. Average weekly earnings of the male manual worker have increased at about 2 per cent. per year faster than the rate of inflation, and have doubled in real terms.
Indeed, ever since the start of the recession in the first quarter of 1979 average earnings in Britain have risen faster than retail prices, and real earnings are still


increasing at just over 2 per cent. per annum. Therefore, it is not helpful to see low pay as a relative problem, and it is misconceived to link low pay and poverty.
As the National Board for Prices and Incomes commented when charged with identifying pay levels which were too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living:
the fixing of the minimum standard of need cannot be exact. The only yardstick which we can appropriately use is that laid down by practice by Parliament, in that Parliament has approved scales of supplementary benefit and made other provision with the result that it has de facto expressed a view as to the level of income below which families are in need.
In short, the most efficient way of relieving poverty consists in targeting social security assistance where it is most needed. Minimum wage legislation will not help here.
In so far as there is any overlap between those who are poor and those on low wages, it is much more because of post-tax wages than pre-tax wages. In 1956, a married man with three children did not become liable for tax at the standard rate until he was earning nearly twice the average wage. Today, the basic rate liability of a man with three children starts at 40 per cent. of the average wage. Indeed, DHSS figures show that in almost every case means-tested benefits payable to employed people are necessary, not because of low pay, but because gross earnings have been whittled away by income tax, national insurance contributions and local authority rates. Therefore, wages councils and minimum pay levels are not necessary to tackle poverty.
Having dealt with that misconception, I return to my original three questions. First, do wages councils protect the weak? Successive Governments have abolished wages councils when it was felt that they were no longer necessary because sufficient potential existed to protect the interests of employees. Indeed, 17 have been abolished since 1960, many of them by a Labour Government.
After the abolition of the cutlery wages council in 1969, the Department of Employment commissioned research on the impact of its abolition. Research paper No. 18 of 1980, "Abolition and After — the Cutlery Wages Council", concluded:
There was no significant improvement in wage determination in cutlery after abolition, no catching up with rates in voluntary collective bargaining agreements in similar industries and sufficient evidence of under-payment of female workers to suggest that the degree of protection has deteriorated.
A further report on the impact of six other wages councils which were abolished concluded:
The overall picture to emerge from the survey of six ex-wages councils was that low pay and inadequate system of collective bargaining had persisted … thus the most important effect of abolition was to increase the size of the unregulated sector and therefore the potential for low pay.
It is also right to observe that those were all wages councils covering areas where, as a precondition of their abolition, it was thought that sufficient potential for fair collective bargaining existed to protect the interests of employees.
In dealing with wages councils one is dealing with the small firm, the average employing seven people. About half of the employees covered are part time and there is generally a low level of trade union activity. Undoubtedly, wages councils at present cover many of the lower paid in the community who can justifiably be described as weak — weak in the skills that they have to offer in the market place and weak in their bargaining power.
Wages councils can fairly be described as protecting the weak, but do they assist in the creation of new jobs? There can be no doubt that there is a clear link between pay levels and jobs. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) once said:
the number of people who have a job will depend directly on the level of pay received by those in work."—Official Report, 6 April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 271.]
Wages that are not earned by productivity can only cause greater inflation and result in the loss of jobs and fewer jobs.
There are those who argue cogently that any minimum pay legislation costs jobs. While giving full weight to such arguments, which of their nature are theoretical, and appreciating that often the marginal product of workers in industries covered at present by wages councils is low so that little added value may necessarily be created by their work, one none the less has to have full regard to the facts of how wages councils actually do impact in practice before making a judgment on whether they inhibit the creation of new jobs or help accelerate the destruction of present jobs.
Minimum rates of pay for full-time adult workers covered by wages councils range from about £45 a week for a hairdresser and shampooist to about £67 for shop assistants. Most wages councils set a minimum basic rate between £55 and £65. Is further depressing the pay of such low-paid workers a valid way to create jobs? Let there be no illusions. Even if all wages councils were abolished tomorrow, many would still be out of work. There might just be some more people in work, but they would receive very low rates of pay.
It does not appear that the activities of wages councils have led to higher earnings or rates of increases in earnings than in other sectors of the economy, or that wages council industries pay higher than average earnings. However, some organisations, such as the Association of Small Firms, argue that during the 1970s wages councils increased wages faster than inflation. It should be remembered that during the 1970s all wages rose faster than inflation. ACAS concluded in its annual report of 1981 by saying that
minimum rates set by wages councils have been relatively very low and have often increased at a slower rate than pay rates in industry generally.
Wages paid to male manual workers in the wages council sector are consequently lower than those paid to the same group in the economy as a whole. They were 77 per cent. of all-economy average earnings in 1982, a lower percentage than in the mid-1970s. However, it has to be recognised that generally speaking the skill content of the great majority of jobs in the wages council sector is low and that the composition of the sector has changed with the exclusion of certain high-paying industries, such as road haulage.
Further, the minimum rates of pay set by wages councils are consistently lower than those set in national agreements. The unweighted average of wages councils minima was equivalent to 43 per cent. of average earnings of all workers aged 18 years and over in April 1980, and it was 42 per cent. in April 1983.
One group for whom wages council rates have almost certainly created barriers to employment by setting too high pay rates is that of 16 and 17-year-olds. The figures show that the average minimum rate for young people under wages council cover is significantly higher relative to adult rates than the relative minimum rates under


national collective agreements. Indeed, no fewer than 22 of the 26 councils pay 16-year-olds a higher proportion of the adult rate than the average proportion paid to this age group under national agreements. In some instances the youth minimum set by the councils is exceptionally high. Furthermore, this has to be set against the background that starting pay for school leavers in Britain is now averaging about 60 per cent. of adult rates, while in the rest of Europe it is averaging below 20 per cent.
Youth wages as a proportion of adult wages are higher in the United Kingdom than in any other Western country. Given the higher proportional minimum rate and the higher level of earnings relative to adults, it is reasonable to conclude that wages councils have reduced, and continue to reduce, the employment opportunities of young people. There is, therefore, a clear case for removing young people from the provisions of the councils. Such a move would certainly help price young people back into employment.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the abolition of wages councils would lead to the creation of a sufficiently larger number of new jobs so as to make acceptable the loss of the protection that they offer to those who are in a weak bargaining position with low pay—

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: I am aware that a number of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), so I shall not give way.
The Select Committee on Employment has received direct evidence from two bodies urging the complete abolition of wages councils. The Institute of Directors had 120 replies to a survey on wages councils that was sent out to its members. All the replies came from those who had had direct experience of wages councils, of whom 54 per cent. said that they would employ more people if they did not have to follow wages council directions. As the institute fairly observes.
it is not possible to draw detailed conclusions from a limited survey of this type.
It is interesting to note, however, that the principal concern of those members of the institute who responded to the survey was not wages rates but the plethora of other terms and conditions which wages councils are presently able to set.
The Association of Small Firms had 206 replies to a similar survey, 66 per cent. saying that minimum wage legislation encouraged them to reduce the number of employees. Again, however, it was not a large survey and there was no evidence of how many of the respondents actually had reduced the number of employees because of wages councils or would actually employ more people if they were abolished, and at what rates of pay.
In short, even from those bodies calling directly for all wages councils to be abolished there is little hard statistical evidence to support the suggestion that, with the exception of young people, the rates of pay set by wages councils have of themselves resulted in the loss of jobs or that there abolition would of itself result in many more adults being in employment.

Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: No, I have already been told that I am taking too long and I am conscious that there are some strong abolitionists around me waiting to speak.
Against such evidence as there is, we have to balance the fact that wages councils have had a role in preventing the competitive undercutting of labour and that a number of companies, particularly smaller ones, have benefited from multi-employer bargaining.
Furthermore, industrial relations have generally been good in those areas of employment covered by wages councils. To abolish wages councils completely would inevitably mean a considerable growth of trade union activity and a possible consequent deterioration in industrial relations. Moreover, if total abolition of wages councils led to continuous allegations of low-paid workers apparently suffering because of the absence of any minimum pay legislation it might be an excuse for a future Labour Government to introduce a national minimum wage. That would be economically disastrous, as such a move would be bound to inflate wage costs even further throughout the economy, leading to bankruptcy of businesses and loss of jobs.
It should also not be ignored that the overwhelming consensus of both the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, who between them represent a substantial proportion of British employers — not just large firms but many smaller businesses as well—is for radical reform rather than outright abolition.

Mr. Fallon: Did the CBI not testify in evidence to the Select Committee that if it could not achieve radical reform of the wages councils it would prefer complete abolition?

Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend were less keen to intervene and actually listened to what I was saying, he would realise that my argument was directed entirely to radical reform of the present position.
In the absence of any substantive evidence that the abolition of wages councils would lead, in practice, to the creation of a significant number of new adult jobs, one has to ask what real benefit can be obtained by abolition which cannot equally be achieved by reform of wages councils. Wages councils should be reformed, not abolished, so that they can set only a single adult rate and a related rate for those aged 18 to 21 and not any other terms or conditions such as those at present covering hours of work, holidays, overtime rates, and so on.
The Department of Employment consultative paper correctly sets out a number of problems faced by employers in coping with the wages council orders and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has illustrated the situation graphically by reference to the fur trade. The consultative paper states:
All these burdens can inhibit the growth of small businesses in the wages council trades and thus damage employment.
Substantially simplifying the wages councils system by removing the council's ability to set detailed statutory terms and conditions would also greatly assist compliance with wages council orders. The director of personnel for John Lewis has commented:
In their present form wages council orders are self defeating.
Such overall reform should also be accompanied by a full review of each and every wages council, with a view to seeing whether some councils might be merged—and, indeed, where appropriate, whether individual


councils should be abolished, using the criteria adopted by successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, in recent years.
The question that I put to my hon. Friends is simply this. Is there any real benefit to be derived from abolition which cannot be obtained by reforms such as these? I submit that wages councils should be reformed and not abolished. Young people should be taken out of the control of wages councils. Wages councils should be able to set only a single minimum adult rate and a related rate for those aged between 18 and 21, and such reforms should be accompanied by a full review of each and every wages council.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: We all ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) for raising this subject because of its happy timing in view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget and because it marks an achievement of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses. It started campaigning on this issue in 1981 with its admirable publication "Priced Out", which has been updated in "Still Priced Out". The title is appropriate as, from 1981 to 1985, yet more youngsters have been deprived of jobs because of the existence of wages councils.
We are in a climate of high unemployment, especially among young people, but that fact should not distract our attention from the plight of other groups whose employment is also affected by wages councils. I refer to the disabled, ethnic minorities and the educationally subnormal, all of whom suffer greater than average unemployment because, when wages councils set a minimum rate, it is all too easy for an employer to get someone who suits him, reflects his prejudices or has the highest possible educational qualifications. He might well take on a different type of person if the pay rates were lower.
There is also a growing awareness that the balance between capital and labour has been out of kilter for some time. That led to a change in the basis of capital allowances in the Budget before last. It was recognised that they often led to the unloading of labour precisely where unemployment was highest. With wages councils, there is too much encouragement to employers to bring in automation rather than to employ youngsters or the groups I have mentioned.
The wages bill as a whole affects unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that every 1 per cent. extra in wage settlements costs approximately 200,000 jobs. I need only to compare the United States, where unit labour costs have risen by about 36 per cent. in the past five years, Japan, where they have risen by 31 per cent. and West Germany, where they have risen by 64 per cent., with the United Kingdom's whacking 104 per cent. for people to realise the close link between our unemployment and the pattern of wage increases.
In his extremely long and detailed speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) referred to pay rises and said that the pattern of the past decade is that they have increased faster than prices. He was right to observe that that was true of the economy as a whole, but the creation of large-scale unemployment is merely an example of wages councils writ large. The increase in wages in the wages council sector has been especially

large among young employees. That has led me to the conclusion that they should not be covered by wages councils. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) referred to the lack of evidence in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. I hope to rectify that. In 1984, H. Neuberger, in a publication of the Low Pay Unit, related the abolition of wages councils to the creation of 8,000 jobs. Therefore, even someone from that sector was prepared to admit that there was a relationship between the number of employees and the level of wages imposed by councils.
To be fair to Mr. or perhaps Mrs. Neuburger—

Mr. Evans: Mr. Neuburger.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Neuburger would have argued that wages councils were worth it for the standard of living enjoyed by workers covered by them, but he nevertheless accepted that 8,000 more jobs would exist if wages councils did not. Robert Meyer and David Wise, in a learned article in Econometrica, showed that 7 per cent. more people would be employed if wages councils did not exist in the sectors covered.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will accept that Henry Neuburger said:
According to our simulation of the Treasury model, the abolition of Wages Councils would result after five years in the creation of just 8,000 jobs—the rise in unemployment in June—one of the best months this year.

Mr. Jones: I am not disputing whether the figure should be small or large. I am pointing out that even on all of Mr. Neuburger's assumptions, which would not be mine, he recognised that extra jobs would be created. We can go on to talk about whether his assumptions are right and whether more jobs would be created, but he accepts that 8,000 more jobs would be created over that period.
Lasyard, in his "Youth Labour Market Problem", published in Chicago, said that a 1 per cent. increase in wages would have destroyed 15,000 jobs. Although the hon. Member for St. Helens, North does not like anecdotal evidence, I shall cite an example from my constituency of the relationship between youth unemployment and the existence of wages councils. A mother told me that she had approached a local hairdresser to ask whether he would train her daughter, and offered to pay him to look after the daughter while she was not contributing economically to the well-being of the business.

Mr. Evans: That would be a novel solution to unemployment. People will pay to work.

Mr. Jones: If the mother was willing, I see no objection to her offer being accepted, but sadly, because of the existence of wages councils it is against the law.
My final comments relate to a more technical matter—the existence of the independent members on wages councils. That has led to a general impression that wages councils are biased against employers. I would not necessarily go so far as to say that, but independent members are far from familiar with the workings of the industries that they hope to influence. They serve on a wide range of wages councils, for example, Sir John Wardie, who is a barrister—I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen in saying that — serves on councils which deal with everything from hairdressing to cafes. No doubt he has built up expertise in those subjects, but I wonder whether he is familiar with the detailed workings of those varied industries.
Mrs. P. Fea, who is a former teacher—an excellent qualification for something like this — is on wages councils for button manufacturing and unlicensed places of refreshment. The notorious Sir John Wood, who still serves on many councils, including licensed residential establishments and licensed restaurants, and the boot and shoe wages councils, — I hope that the Minister will notice that broad range — chaired the road haulage wages council and, by some coincidence, chaired the commission of inquiry into the future of the road haulage wages council. That fact did not come to light until my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) pointed it out in his excellent work together with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on quangoes. Curiously, that issue was resolved, and Sir John departed. There are far too many academics. Of the 70 independent members of wages counsil in December, no fewer than 38 were academics — lecturers, professors, university administrators, or people who had retired from those professions. The Government must reconsider the existence of independent members.
Wages councils are extremely rigid. They do not differentiate between the prevailing economic costs and wage rates in different parts of the country. How can it be right to pay people the same wage in the same industry in an area with low costs, such as the east midlands and Yorkshire, and in an area such as mine, which has extremely high costs? That is a weakness of the wages councils system, and of national wage bargaining generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury mentioned the working conditions that are set by the councils. They can set holiday requirements, the number of hours that people may work, and sick leave. It is possible that a wages council could set a low minimum wage per hour and an employer could pay three or four times that wage; but if he asks an employee to work more than the set hours, he could be in breach of the law. That becomes especially stupid when, at the request of the employee concerned, the employer has allowed him to work on a Saturday or Sunday, when he is entitled to considerably enhanced wages. That may not be the wish of the employer; he may do it out of courtesy and kindness to the employee.
In conclusion, either wages councils increase wages to above the rate at which we would start to reduce unemployment—whatever that level may be—or they have no effect on wages at all, in which case they are useless and we should not spend £4 million a year on the edifice that creates them. In either case, the time has come for them to be abolished. I hope that sufficient attention has been paid during the debate to the unemployment that wages councils create to persuade my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to recommend their abolition to the Government.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am not surprised by the contributions that we have heard tonight from Conservative Members, because it is the Government's clear intention to deregulate almost everything in sight. As a long-standing trade unionist, I must say that trade unions have had differing opinions about wages councils. At the time of full employment, many of us argued about the restrictions placed on some

sections of workers by the wages councils. But now the Government are intent on deregulation, which is aimed at the most vulnerable sections of society — at the categories of workers who are protected by the wages councils. There is some difference of opinion about the direction in which the Government are moving. My view is that the Government do not intend to abolish the wages councils but that they will so draw their teeth that they will become ineffective.
There may be a valid criticism of the trade union movement for not drawing those areas which are now covered by wages councils into collective bargaining. That is a historical fact. Certain industries were difficult to organise because of their nature and have a history of low wages, poor conditions and part-time work.
I was somewhat amazed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who raised the issue of women in employment. What she said was contrary to the reality of women in factory work, many of whom are under the protection of the Wages Councils. As the hon. Lady will know, many of the people employed in such work are female and on part-time employment. The exploitation of those people is greater than in industries where women are organised and capable of asserting their position as women in the industry, and can argue for parity with their male counterparts.
The Government's intention has been shown by Tory Back Benchers. It is about the philosophy of cutting the living standards of ordinary working people to maximise the profits of those who employ them. We should not lose sight of the fact that that is the Government's intention. Facts and figures about the value of the Wages Councils can be argued, but below the surface the argument comes through from the Tory party that it is in the process of whipping back all the rights that have been established by workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) made a good case showing that the Conservative party's greatest leader was of the opinion that there should be protection for those who worked in industry but, for whatever reason, had not joined trade unions and therefore had not become part of the collective wages bargaining system, but should still be protected.
The Tory party is saying that that protection, little and inadequate though it be, should be removed. It is arguing that that will create more jobs, but in reality that argument is nonsense. Today, 45 young people from Merseyside came down to the House of Commons to meet the Prime Minister. Anybody who heard what they said after that meeting would have no illusions about the attitude of the Government to the job seeking generation, and the chance of the young ever having jobs.
Since 1979, the Government have set their course clearly in one direction. In the economic crisis which we, and the rest of the world, have been in, they argue that it has been necessary for the Government to take a radical Right-wing line to attempt — I underline that word attempt—to stabilise our economy. Their line is that they should challenge all the things that have been achieved by negotiation and trade union activity, and, in particular what has happened since the war, when the working class has been able to gain some more of the wealth that they create and increase their living standard.
This Government have adopted a radical, Right-wing line. They are prepared to reduce the negotiating powers of the trade unions and to abolish regulations that have


provided some measure of protection for the real creators of wealth. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister refer during the weekend to the wealth creators. Those who create wealth do not sit in City boardrooms. They are to be found in the coalfields, docks, factories and commerce. By hand or by brain they are the creators of wealth and it is right that their living standards should be protected by means of wages councils. They were established to protect the weakest workers in industry and commerce and prevent their exploitation.
I am surprised that Conservative Members do not recognise that the wages councils have been able to stabilise the very low demands regarding pay and conditions of this part of the industrial sector. Instead, the Government are seeking to abolish the wages councils and are attempting to remove all protection relating to pay and conditions. Therefore, the Labour party is quite right to stand up and object strongly to the attempts that are being made by the most reactionary section of the Conservative party. They say that now that the trade union movement has been weakened the process ought to be taken one stage further by attacking the very inadequate provision that is made for such workers by the wages councils.
Conservative Members have made it clear in this debate that they believe that the only way to achieve the maximisation of profits, which they say is the essential ingredient for creating a prosperous economy and full employment, is to adopt this course. Nothing that the wages councils abolition can offer will increase the employment opportunities of those who live in the north-west and other industrial areas. The Government completely fail to recognise that those who are seeking work today are completely different from those who sought work in the 1920s and 1930s. They have a higher level of aspiration and objectiveness. Our society is not providing the right kind of work for them. They are becoming increasingly alienated against society. Society cannot now offer young people work when they want and need it. Many young people in my area leave school at 18 or 19, marry and start a family without ever having had a job. 'That is a condemnation of our society and it will cause major problems.
Government Members look for ways to maximise profit and say that the revival of British industry depends upon small businesses which employ only a few people. They are trying to recycle the capitalist system.
I have no doubt that if we rely on small businesses we shall have to wait for at least three decades before we begin to solve the unemployment problem. I do not think that Government Members really believe that the abolition of wages councils will create employment. However, abolition will allow the hyperexploitation of young people who are already working and of female employees. The maximisation of profit can be gained only at the expense of cutting the already abysmal wages offered under the wages councils' protection.
I am not surprised at the Government's approach. In some senses we should welcome it. Some workers who have not so far been organised by trade unions have had to seek help elsewhere. Because of changes in the pattern of industry, unemployment, and changes in technology, people have had to turn elsewhere. If the wages councils were abolished, we might welcome the opportunity to move into other areas. The trade union movement is already aware of the opportunities.
If the limited protection of the wages councils is removed, workers will seek protection from the trade union movement. We would welcome that. That will be an inevitable consequence of the abolition of the wages councils. The argument might seem contradictory, but I have never had a full regard for wages councils. However, they protect workers in some industries who are not able, or who do not want, to belong to a trade union. Wages councils have provided some minimum protection so that workers are able to achieve a certain standard of living.
The Government might decide to draw the teeth of the wages councils rather than to abolish them. They might retain the structure but remove the effectiveness. That might be of benefit to the multitude of people who at present rely upon the protection of the wages councils. It will be a new recruitment field for the trade union movement which I would welcome. In those circumstances, in spite of the fact that the Government are in the process of attempting to weaken the basis of trade union collective bargaining, there will be a short-term advantage for the Government, and in the longer term the trade unions will be able to establish new areas of recruitment which will bring people who hitherto have not been organised under the protection of the trade union movement so that they can advance their living standards and wages and conditions.
The Labour party, in my view, is right to argue that there is no logical reason why those people who are at least minimally protected by the wages councils should be deprived of that protection. The proposed removal of wages councils can be seen only as a blatant political attempt by the Government to weaken the power of working people by denying them this protection.
The retention of wages councils should be viewed in two ways. First, we see a need for the retention of wages councils to protect those who are most vulnerable from exploitation by certain categories of employer. Secondly, they open up the possibility of a wider recruitment of people into the trade union movement, and will reassert the position of working people.
I believe that in abolishing the wages councils the Government are going in the wrong direction. I hope that at the end of the day sense will prevail and that there will be no drawing of the teeth, particularly with regard to the inspectors. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North, the number of cases in which inspectors have found employers paying below the level demanded by statute is an indication of their value.
A Government who go in the direction of abolishing wages councils will be exposed outside the House as a Government who do not care for those who work in industry because working people would be deprived of the protection that trade union organised industries have. They will be seen as a Government who are not concerned about people or about employment.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) spoke at considerable length, hoping, no doubt, to make up for the lack of troops on the Labour Benches. This debate is important and, in essence, has been conducted by Conservative Members. Opposition Members, who made such a fuss about the issue when the Chancellor presented the Budget, have opted out of the debate, both in the Chamber and in the nation.
It is clear that the main debate on the subject will be conducted by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) dealt with the issue in a restrained and considered way, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who called for total abolition. The Green Paper reflects the Government's misgivings about the way in which wages councils have contributed to unemployment in recent years. It is an excellent document which contains a number of alternatives. Indeed, the Green Paper provides the answers to those who argue for abolition or reform, for it contains two paragraphs devoted to abolition and four devoted to the need for radical reform.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it was possible to put the abolition proposal in one paragraph — indeed, it could have been put in one sentence—whereas with reform it takes more words to describe some of the problems.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I was about to congratulate him and his colleagues who prepared the Green Paper, because, as I say, it answers the questions that hon. Members have asked. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury wondered whether it should be abolition or radical reform. Paragraph 20 says:
Reforms of the kind outlined in paragraph 16–19 would remove many of the detailed inflexibilities of the system and greatly reduce the bureaucratic burdens on employers, and above all help to promote job opportunities particularly for young people.
That proposition was supported by my hon. Friend. The paragraph goes on:
But compared with the abolition option they are unlikely to have as much effect on the overall level of employment and risk maintaining artifically high rates of pay for adults, damaging to employment.
Thus, the Green Paper answers the debate. If the option of radical reform is chosen by the Minister, then, according to that document, it would be
unlikely to have as much effect on the overall level of employment and risk maintaining artifically high rates of pay for adults, damaging to employment.
That is the importance of what we are seeking to do. The Government are seeking to address themselves seriously to the problem of unemployment. They have recognised the contribution which wages councils have made to unemployment.

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman had a long innings. If he had not spoken for so long I might have given way, but I will not give way because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The main purpose of the debate is to consider the two alternatives put forward in the Green Paper. The answer is in the Green Paper itself. If we are determined to do something about the level of unemployment and if we recognise that wages councils have contributed to unemployment, then by going down the route of radical reform we will not address the central question in the Green Paper.
I want to draw the attention of the House to what was said last year by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who was then the Minister of State at the Department of Employment. I seem to have an incredible ability to quote

things said by my hon. Friend. Last time he was not happy about something he had said which I placed on the record. I think he will be more relaxed when I draw to public attention something which he put on the record last year in his capacity as Minister of State. In reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), he said in regard to wages councils:
if the operation of such councils leads … to fewer jobs and less opportunities, it would be quite wrong for any Government concerned about unemployment not to consider carefully the way in which those wages councils work."—[Official Report, 15 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 285.]
He and his successors have honoured that commitment. The Government have recognised that wages councils lead to fewer jobs and opportunities. Even on the bleakest analysis by the Low Pay Unit, it acknowledges that more jobs will result from the abolition of wages councils. I take the point of the Low Pay Unit that over a five-year period it will be only 8,000 jobs and that the number of unemployed is 3½ million. The Low Pay Unit recognised that against a backcloth of 3½ million unemployed the likely effect of abolishing wages councils would be more and not fewer jobs. Even if it was only one single job that would be created as a result of the abolition of wages councils I would say that it was worth doing.

Mr. Evans: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am quoting the Low Pay Unit. The hon. Gentleman has got from the Library the research brief which he quoted. I have it here too. I will give way briefly.

Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give the rest of the quote from Mr. Neuburger? After his reference to 8,000 jobs he said:
Moreover, because the Treasury model tends to overstate the effects of changes in wages on employment levels, the number of extra jobs likely to be created by abolishing the wages councils is probably less than half the number estimated by the market.
That was over five years. Now we have over 4 million unemployed.

Mr. Brown: I am not in any way seeking to suggest that the Low Pay Unit wants the wages councils to be abolished. The Low Pay Unit is defending the status quo and, in doing so, it must acknowledge in the final sentence that more jobs—the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has suggested 4,000 more—will be created because of the abolition of the wages councils.
Let us leave on one side that rather biased and prejudiced analysis, which still acknowledges that there will be more rather than fewer jobs without the abolition of the wages councils, and discuss the analysis by the research institute of the university of Chicago. The analysis suggested that a 1 per cent. wage increase levied by wages councils in this country would adversely affect the employment of 15,000 young people.
Although the hon. Member for St. Helens, North may not suggest that the abolition of wages councils will create jobs, their existence certainly loses jobs. That fact cannot be denied. Even if we examine the terms of reference of the hon. Gentleman's argument—looking at the impact of the wages councils on the negative side, rather than considering, as Conservative Members are doing, the positive side of their abolition — we find that wages councils have a negative impact on jobs and, indeed, lose jobs. No hon. Member would deny the impact of job losses that have occurred because of wages councils' wage increases.

Mr. Evans: Nonsense.

Mr. Brown: It is not nonsense. The former Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Albert Booth, who had responsibility for defending the expansion of the wages councils following the Employment Protection Act 1975, had some embarrassing moments during the late 1970s as a result of the existence of the wages councils. A number of Opposition Members will recall those days.

Mr. Evans: Put the evidence.

Mr. Brown: There is no doubt that the abolition of the wages councils will create more jobs. By whatever test one cares to apply and however bleak the analysis, the fact is that more jobs will be created.
The Green Paper acknowledges that radical reform will not lead to as many jobs being created as would be created with total abolition. I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have regard to the paragraph in the Green Paper to which I referred when the Government make their final decision.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on gaining this debate. If we are to have wages councils, I wish that my hon. Friend could get them to fix more sensible hours for beginning and finishing the debate.
When I look at the attendance in the Chamber, it is obvious who is concerned about unemployment. The Opposition are concerned only with their union membership and protecting their union rates. Government Members are concerned with unemployment. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) wanted to see the evidence. I should have said that the evidence of 3 million unemployed after 75 years of wages councils was sufficient evidence for anyone.
We are debating more than the economics of workers pricing themselves out of jobs. We are debating something greater—our compassion for those on the lowest wages on the ladder of earnings and for those who are not yet on the ladder, who are without a job. We have compassion for the dignity of man.
I originally felt that wages councils were no more and no less than a great restrictive practice, a giant conspiracy between employers and the employed against the unemployed. That is the evidence for the hon. Member for St. Helens, North.
Our concern is greater than that. It is for all those whose lot is the lowest. How do we improve their lot? Is the best way to increase their low earnings by taking away the bottom rung of the ladder, or is it better for them to earn more by learning how to climb the ladder of earnings from the bottom rung?
Conditions were very different when Charles Kingsley wrote "Cheap Clothes and Nasty" and when the House first started deliberating legislation for minimum wages. Today's world is one in which average earnings are far greater than they ever were in the past, in which job mobility carries people up the ladder of earnings and in which the welfare state has taken over the social need for a minimum income; a world in which this country is no longer the richest, with a dominant share of world trade, in which industry could be given the task of carrying the social can. Today we have lost our premier position. We

no longer have the largest financial reserves in the world. Our share of world trade has dwindled. We have squeezed the lemon and there is no juice left.
If Charles Kingsley were alive today he would not be worrying about the return of Victorian sweatshops; he would not want to be writing "Cheap Clothes and Nasty" today; he would be worrying about why the bottom rung of the ladder has been taken away, so that those who want to work cannot find jobs. Today he would be writing about "Closed Shops and the Nash"—as national assistance is known to those who have to live on it, people who cannot get a job because the bottom rung has been taken away, in a world in which unions thought that they could dictate the terms.
I believe that the dignity of man requires that every man has a rung on the ladder of opportunity so that however low he starts—and I started work at £4 5s. a week—he can look up to the next step and the step above that.
By setting minimum wage levels, wages councils have taken away the bottom rung. By artificially lifting some people up they have taken away the incentive for them to climb by their own efforts. They have taken away the first rung for those without a job.
By doing away with wages councils we are not going back to the sweatshops of Charles Kingsley's days but are going to the wealthshops of our competitors today. Germany and Japan recovered after the war by running their countries like one big sweatshop, and now they have a higher standard of living than we do. The most telling example of all is Hong Kong—the world's archetypal sweatshop; the place where, if someone does not work, he starves. Hong Kong now has a higher average income per head than we do.
If we want to increase our standard of living faster than our competitors, we are going to have to work, not in Government-created jobs, not in infrastructure schemes, but in jobs which will win back our share of world markets. There is plenty of demand in world markets; the problem is our ability to compete.
If sweatshops are synonymous with wealthshops, I am all in favour of this country becoming a wealthshop where by the sweat of our brow we can once again become the workshop of the world; where our compassion for the dignity of man allows every one of our fellow citizens to climb the ladder of earnings and where no one in government wants to take away the most vital of all rungs of the ladder, the first rung.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on the timeliness of the subject he has chosen.
It seems to me that the arguments are absolutely clear. The wages councils are an anachronism. They have failed in their purpose. They have been defended with fairly colourful rhetoric by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who seem to be the entire representation that the Labour party has been able to muster on this important matter. It has been the rhetoric of sweated labour and exploitation that we have heard, and precious little else. But the reality is that of protecting the interests of Britain's poorest paid. The reality is that these wages councils have destroyed jobs for young people and


have rewarded the semi-skilled at the expense of the unskilled, the ethnic minorities and the most vulnerable section of the work force.
I do not want to go, into all the absurdities in the make-up of the wages councils; there is not time for that. But progress has been made and I am delighted to see that we have got rid of the hair, bass and fibre trade wages council and that the wholesale mantle and costume manufacturers wages council has gone. I see that we still have the ostrich, fancy feather and artificial flower wages council and apparently it is necessary to have a wages council for the 200 people who are employed in making coffins.
However, despite the fact that the members of those wages councils are appointed by Government and that they and the inspectorate to enforce them are financed by the taxpayers, they are apparently independent. They can and do impose wage levels that they think right, and the efforts of the present Government and of their predecessors to restrain pay levels have at times been freely ignored. Ignored, too, have been the interests of the small business man and smaller employers. Wages awards are written in complicated and quite incomprehensible language, leading to frequent mistakes.
While Opposition Members have tried to argue that the success of wages councils lies in the inspectors having identified cases of underpayment, all too often the fault lies in the misreading of difficult and detailed documents by overworked bosses rather than any deliberate or malicious attempt to hold down wages. Indeed, in some cases, inspectors have treated as underpayment private arrangements made to suit an employee's special needs. If the hon. Member for St. Helens, North says that there is no evidence, I can only imagine that he has not bothered to read the welter of particular cases produced by the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, and other bodies.
One case that struck a chord with me was that of a small business—a restaurant owner who had decided to close his restaurant. The manageress said that she would take a pay cut if he would keep it going for another year, which he agreed to do. Shortly afterwards, the inspector arrived, and subsequently fined him for failing to pay the laid-down rate. The low-paid were protected and looked after because the restaurant closed down and the manageress lost her job.

Mr. Evans: Name the restaurant.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman proves my point. He has not bothered to read the material from the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses. If he would like to borrow mine, he can read it for what remains of the debate. He makes a cheap point by trying to get me to name the individuals concerned, and he can find the case for himself.
It is significant that the arrears that are paid following visits by inspectors are generally small, covering relatively few workers, and lead to only a handful of prosecutions. At £4 million a year, it costs substantially more to operate the system than the £2 million or so that it recovers for underpaid workers.
Further criticisms that need to be made concern the attitudes — my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made this point vividly —of the so-called independent members of the councils.

They are usually academics, they seem to have little understanding of the real world in which businesses have to operate, and they have insufficient sympathy with the problems of making an enterprise pay. There is a tendency to appoint the same people to the councils, as with all quangos, and the number of individuals sitting on more than one is staggering.
However, it is the effect of wages councils on pay and employment that is the fundamental criticism. Research carried out in 1979–80 for the Department of Employment suggests that the wages councils have had little effect on levels of pay, employment or trade union membership. Other evidence suggests that in some areas, particularly in the employment of young people, wages have been raised above market levels, leading to a loss of jobs.
I do not understand the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). If it is true that raising wage costs in a business will result in fewer young people being employed, why.is it not also true of older people? Why is it not true of people who represent particular groups in society who find it difficult to find employment? The logic of his position seems unsustainable. I cannot help thinking that in trying to justify a pragmatic solution, he has got himself into difficulties.
In 1945 wages councils set youth pay at 30 per cent. of adult levels. Today it is 62 per cent., despite several studies that have concluded that that increase in young people's pay leads to disproportionate increases in youth unemployment. In April 1970 only 12 per cent. of those aged 18 were receiving adult rates of pay, but by April 1980 the figure had risen to 53 per cent.
Low pay is not something that should be denigrated in itself—it is often a road to high pay. The patronising attitude of the Opposition to those with low pay must be heard to be believed. They want to see a pool of people who are permanently low paid being looked after by some regulatory body, whereas we want an opportunity for people to be brought into employment, to be given the opportunity to learn new skills and to be able to advance their role within the labour market — a constantly changing group of people who are taking jobs at low levels of pay rather than a permanent group who remain at that level and are looked after by some apparatus of the state.
Even the TUC has admitted that there must be some truth in the proposition that, all other things being equal, an individual employer will tend to employ more people if wages are lower and fewer people if wages are higher. In addition, every extra complication that is imposed on small businesses reduces their willingness to take on permanent employees. Not only are the regulations complicated and the attention of the inspectors a further time-consuming nuisance, but the awards themselves are often backdated, which makes financial control and discipline extremely difficult.
In fairness, it was suggested that wages councils had a role to play in preventing unfair competition. It is competition that actually creates jobs and wealth. Unfair competition and the role that wages councils play in that means keeping inefficient managers in their jobs; keeping down the flexibility and the innovation in firms and preventing businesses from being able to win new markets and create further employment.
I believe that wages councils have survived because of what people believe they do rather than because of any objective assessment of their benefits. They may have been an understandable response to the sweat workshops


of the 19th century; they may have made some sense in a society with poor communications which left workers unaware of wage levels elsewhere, let alone able to move to better locations; but in today's world they are an unnecessary nuisance. At best they do little more than reflect the market and at worst they distort it to the detriment of the weakest members of society, creating unemployment where none need exist.
One thing is certain: wages councils have failed utterly in their task of eliminating low pay. The Low Pay Unit recently produced figures that show that 100 years ago 10 per cent. of the British work force earned only 68.6 per cent. of the then average wage—today the bottom tenth earn only 68·3 per cent.
If we are to rid ourselves of these relics of an Edwardian era, we must give the International Labour Organisation a year's notice of our intentions. The case for abolishing wages councils is clear and has been repeated over the years. This Government have in the past prided themselves on taking decisions that were unpopular because they believed that they were right. The time is fast approaching —I hope that tonight's debate will have helped—when the same courageous stand will need to be taken over wages councils.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is all too often that debates take place in which all the arguments are deployed by Conservative Members and we hear nothing from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), realising the inadequacy of his argument, took refuge in incoherence. It was an occasion when one had the greatest sympathy for those who compile the Official Report. They have the unenviable task of trying to make head or tail of such speeches.
There can be no greater contrast between the speeches in this debate than that of the hon. Member for Garston and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). We look forward to reading the latter in Hansard the day after tomorrow. I am sure that we shall find the contents of my hon. Friend's speech rather more digestible in print than it is possible to find them in a debate of this sort.
I share the astonishment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) about one part of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, which I believe I understand correctly. If the fixing of a minimum wage creates youth unemployment, why does that not have the same result for adults? I suppose that part of the reason for this is that youth wages are fixed at a higher than market clearing level than the level for adults. There is a differential between the two, but in principle there is the same fixing of minimum wages. Unemployment, albeit to a greater or lesser proportion or extent, is nevertheless created. If we are against unemployment, as all my right hon. and hon. Friends are, the logic of my hon. Friend's argument is that wages councils should be abolished and not merely radically reformed.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, but there is not much time remaining to us.

Mr. Bottomley: I shall take the duration of my intervention from my time to reply to the debate. It seems that my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr.

Hamilton) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) have confused themselves over proportionality. If the relationship of youth pay to adult pay has moved from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent., it might be halved. My hon. Friends have not suggested that the adult minimum rate should be halved.

Mr. Hamilton: These relationships are not necessarily absolutely proportional. I have no idea of the elasticities that are involved. Surely the principle is the same if wages are fixed above market clearing levels, whether for youth employment or adult employment. Logic suggests abolition and not merely reform.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State seemed to be asking my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) to quantify the relationship between youth wages and adult wages in the wages council area and outside. In wages council industries, youngsters earn 66 per cent. of the adult wage whereas in the non-wages council sector they earn only 53 per cent. That is the gap that we are discussing.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. The labour market is like any other market and it responds to the price mechanism. If the price of labour is fixed at an artificially high level, the demand for it will fall. That is something that Keynes well understood. In the "General Theory of Employment Interest and Money" he stated:
With a given organisation, equipment and technique, real wages and the volume of output (and hence of employment) are uniquely correlated so that, in general, any increase in employment can only occur to the accompaniment of a decline in the rate of real wages. Thus I am not disputing this vital fact which the classical economists have (rightly) asserted as indefeasible.
All the so-called Keynesian guff that we hear about expanding the economy and investing in infrastructure as a means of reducing unemployment seems to miss the fundamental reality that the main cause of unemployment is micro-economic and nothing to do with the failure of demand. The situation is different from that which prevailed in the 1930s when unemployment was a monetary phenomenon. If we are to make inroads into unemployment, we must concentrate on the micro-economic causes, one of which is the existence of wages councils.
The effect of the activities of the wages councils has been to discriminate against those who are the least skilled and the least productive in society. Their effect has been to institutionalise the benefits to those who are employed at the expense of those who are unemployed. That is fundamentally unacceptable and, indeed, immoral. That is why we should opt for the abolition of the wages councils and not for fundamental reform.
Wages councils have effects upon employment because they affect wages and influence a host of other matters as well. In particular, they have substantially increased youth unemployment because the qualifying age for the adult rate has been reduced as a result of wages council activity over the years. The evidence for that is clearly set out in the booklet from the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, to which reference has been made several times in the debate.
Wages councils have also affected entitlement to holidays. That, too, affects the costs of a business and thus the number of jobs that it can provide. It also greatly adds to the complexities facing small business men. I could cite


many examples. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) would no doubt describe them as anecdotal, but they are none the less real and substantiated. For example, a stationer in Liverpool, says:
After a visit by the wages inspector I have discovered that, due to my incomprehension of the Retail Wages Council publications, I have underpaid two employees. They have contracts for 37½ hours per week and have been paid for that time. But in the 'definition' section, a 'full-time worker' is one employed for at least 36 hours a week. Under the 'guaranteed weekly remuneration' provisions, however, the weekly remuneration is based on workers' entitlement for 40 hours. Consequently, they have been 'underpaid' for 2½ hours per week which they did not work.
That is absurd and cannot possibly be justified. No fundamental reform of the wages councils will get rid of those anomalies. The only way to get rid of them is to abolish the whole institution.
There are other equally absurd anomalies. For example, it almost beggars belief that a part-time employee in a hotel working Monday, Wednesday and Friday is entitled to pay on most bank holidays whereas one who works Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday is not. What on earth is the justification for that ridiculous state of affairs?
The only way to do away with that catalogue of absurdities is to do away with the institution itself. In so doing, we shall be recognising that the whole institution is based on an unreality which has very damaging effects on those in society least able to look after themselves. That is the paradox of the institution. The intention behind the setting up of wages councils was, of course, benign—to try to increase artificially the income levels of employees in certain industries and trades. In so far as they have achieved that—and it is doubtful whether there has been any substantial effect in that respect—it has been at the expense of those who are even worse off. That being so, I find it difficult to understand how Socialists can support such an institution.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North said that there was no empirical evidence to prove the case against wages councils. In fact, there is a wealth of evidence, much of it in a document on "The Case for Abolition" published by the Institute of Directors. I commend that document to the hon. Gentleman, as it considers the academic evidence published in learned journals throughout the world. There is no time to go into the details, as we are all anxious to here my hon. Friend the Minister reply to the debate, but there is a considerable body of evidence from the United States and from other countries with minimum wage legislation showing the damaging effects of wages councils and that minimum wage regulations actually institutionalise unemployment.
If we are, as a party, to recover our respect, which in many parts of society has been damaged by unacceptably high unemployment which, alas, has grown upon us in the past 20 years, we must accept that we can begin to reduce unemployment only if we look to the root causes. The root causes are labour market regulations and institutions which prevent people from putting into effect their desire to employ other people. That is why the Government's opportunity to denonouce the ILO convention is important for us as a party, no less than as a country. I counsel my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to take the radical course, which is right for a Conservative Government in this difficult economic climate, to abolish

wages councils and not to mess around with any unacceptable compromise which would only reduce the beneficial effects that the Government wish to achieve.

6 am

Mr. Michael Fallon: I am a little surprised at your sums, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is probably because I have sat here longer than any Back Bencher and applied for this debate. I have been in the Chamber since the middle of the previous debate and have still not been called. I wonder—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not reflecting on the Chair. If he is, I must ask him to withdraw such a reflection.

Mr. Fallon: It is the Chair which selects the order of hon. Members who speak. I wonder whether you—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter is entirely at the discretion of the Chair. There are many factors that the Chair has to take into account. The hon. Gentleman must not reflect on whom the Chair calls to speak.

Mr. Fallon: I am simply emphasising that it is a matter for the Chair. That is no reflection on the occupant of the Chair. It is obviously a matter for the discretion of Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you were surprised that the Opposition could not draw more than 0·5 per cent. of their parliamentary strength for this debate or that we could muster only my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to question abolition.
I am not ashamed to speak in favour of the abolition of wages councils, partly as a matter of principle but certainly not in opposition to trade unionism. I often wonder why the Labour party does not see the potential for some unionisation after abolition. I favour abolition only because I want more people to be in work especially young people in depressed areas of the country. The whole and sole effect of wages councils is to price people out of work.
Wages councils fail to give workers more money, and jobs that we might have expected have not been created. It is no part of the abolitionist's duty to prove that a given number of jobs might have ceased to exist because of wages councils. The numbers out of work should prove the case, as should the ratio of young people out of work. In the late 1960's it was similar to the national average, but it is now almost double the national average.
Others have emphasised the irrelevance of the low pay argument in this debate. Those who argue that the abolition of wages councils is linked to low pay ignore the fact that what matters to the average family is not low pay but low income. The draft Council of Europe definition is a definition of low income. It is vulnerable because it is a definition of an average. There will always be low pay—under 66 per cent. of the average—so that definition should not affect what we say.
If we want to tackle poverty, low pay or whatever the Opposition want to call it, we should improve job prospects rather than raise pay levels. Where jobs are not relevant, other things can be done, such as providing proper benefit for those who are retired, for single parent families, and so on.
My major objection to wages councils is that they are discriminatory. It is not that they price people generally out of work, but that they particularly exclude from work the most disadvantaged people — the youngest, the


unskilled and the poorest. Retail trades would most easily take on young people in the north of England. The unskilled do not normally enrol on Government training schemes, they need work experience and they are being denied the chance to acquire disciplines and skills by the wages council system. The poorest are effectively thrown out of work each time that the councils' minimum wage is raised.
Of those three categories, I am most worried about the youngsters. It is said that youngsters will not work for a particular wage. That is not true when one considers the number of youngsters who enrol willingly on the young workers scheme, and who are prepared to accept a wage of £26 a week on the youth training scheme. It is nonsense for hon. Members to say what youngsters will or will not work for.
The youngsters have not been free to say what they will do. Whatever system we believe in, our one duty to them is to give them the chance to decide for themselves. If they are not willing to work for £40 a week and prefer to stay on the dole for £26 a week, they have nothing to lose, but if they are, they can price themselves into work.
Secondly, by ending the wages council system, we would end a limit on growth. About 86 per cent. of employees covered by wages councils are in the services sector. Those are the services that are expanding and creating new jobs—catering, retailing, hairdressing and so on. In ending that limit on growth, we would be freeing business. Just as important as the nearly 3 million workers covered by the councils are the 400,000 establishments and the 260,000 employers who would by abolition be freed from interference, such as the regulation of overtime, rest days, holiday entitlement and hours of work. It is enormously important to sweep that away.
The consultative paper has a further importance. Although it is flimsy—a mere 24 paragraphs covering five pages of typescript—it represents a change in the approach of the Department of Employment, away from the head counting and macro-economic approach to industrial relations. I hope to see a change in attitude and approach towards a framework of labour market policies, which genuinely free employment in the labour markets and which will lead us on to tackle the restrictive practices in the labour markets, to relax rent controls, to recapture the jobs in the black economy and to make a reality of the right to work in our society. I hope that it would go some small way towards tackling the paradox that there is plenty of work, but remarkably few jobs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Bottomley: What a pity!
One of the advantages that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and with the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) is that discussing the statutory minimum wage rates set by wages councils of about £60 or £70 a week makes a fair contrast with what we discussed earlier in relation to the printing industry, when we were told that some people earned £700 a week for half a week's attendance. But I do not wish to

use my time discussing that. Although we shall no doubt return to the subject of wages councils, low pay, low incomes, and the overlap between the two, I wish to try to deal with some issues today.
Without the interventions of the hon. Members for St. Helens, North and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), at one stage in the debate it may have been thought that Conservative Members were a pale imitation of the Labour party in one of its friendlier moods. That would be an error. It is important to recognise, as most hon. Members who have spoken do, that there are serious issues underlying the Government's determination to create job opportunities and to ensure that unmet needs and resources are put together by voluntary association — between customer and supplier or between employer and employee.
Any of my hon. Friends who believe that their eloquence or oratory will persuade me to announce tonight that the Government have taken a decision on the consultative paper will be disappointed. We expect to receive comments on the paper by 31 May, and after we have gone through the consultation process, we shall announce decisions. But for those who may have been misled by some newspaper reports about possible differences within the Government, perhaps I could refer the House to column 107 of the Official Report for 25 March, where my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about,
the proposal radically to reform the wages councils." —[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 107.]
I should tell the House that, had he had more time to reply to the debate, he would have said that another option is to abolish them. The Government stand four-square behind what we see as the two proper options facing the House and the country.
Last year or the year before, I spoke in a debate about low pay. When I re-read my speech after I took responsibility for answering questions on low pay, I discovered that I was not embarrassed by what I said before I became a Minister.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman must be unique in the Tory party.

Mr. Bottomley: There are those who say that I got this position as a reward for bad behaviour and consistency.

Mr. Michael Brown: What did my hon. Friend say about fluoride?

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that my hon. Friend would have quoted anything that I had said on fluoride. But having listened to him at this hour of the morning on the subject of fluoride, I am tempted to pay less attention to some of his remarks, knowing that he can speak at great length about matters in which I am sure he does not really believe. Most Members of Parliament have been shown to have said one thing on one occasion and another thing on another occasion, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) said that he did not believe it was possible to get rid of the anomalies without wholesale abolition. If we chose the option of keeping an adult minimum hourly rate, all anomalies would disappear. All that would be left would be possibly a market distorting or matching adult rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) put forward a rather more balanced description of the issues facing the Government. Although there were accusations of "planting" to him and to those of my hon. Friends who


advocate wholesale abolition, anyone who reads this debate in the context of the Budget debates, especially Monday's debate when some of my hon. Friends gave their views on the options, will discover that they came down not especially in favour of wholesale abolition.
There is an area to be debated, but it must be debated not just in one party or only in Parliament, because nearly 3 million people are, or might be, directly affected by wages councils as they work full or part-time in wages council industries. But there are also more opportunities for more people to get jobs, if we make the right decision and if the right consequences follow. The latter are not just market forces, because effective market operation requires information and something that could be called enterprise, confidence or risk-taking. People need to believe that if there is a change in the law, it is likely to stick, which means trying to avoid some of the issues in rent control, to which hon. Members have referred. Measures in that sector have not had the impact that they should have had because people have not had the confidence that they would stick.
The hon. Member for Garston said that he almost relished the idea of the abolition of the wages councils. If he is right, perhaps there will not be too much opposition from the Labour party. We are in the slightly paradoxical situation in which the trade unions and the Labour party believe that the Government want to abolish the wages councils wholesale, and many of my hon. Friends believe that we do not. Perhaps both sides are right, and what I say about us making up our mind after we have had the responses is what matter.
A good deal of attention has been concentrated on the wages councils issues. I recommend to those who will read our debates various documents that they should also read. One is the consultative paper itself, which, although it is brief, could not be described, except in the physical sense, as flimsy. It is one of the best papers that the Government have produced, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject.
I also recommend the research note from the House of Commons Library, which is up to the Library's usual standard, and covers the ground well. For those who want to go a little further, there is a book by F. J. Bayliss, called "British Wages Councils", which is unfortunately out of print and was produced in 1962. It is interesting to see that at that time the country was facing the problem of over employment. If we managed to go from 1962 to 1985 and change the situation in a dramatically harmful way for many people who want to go to work but cannot, we should, within the same period of time or less, be able to reverse the process. I know that the House will expect the Government to show a little more of their thinking, during the next few days and weeks.
A good booklet, which has been mentioned once or twice is called "Still Priced Out! Wages councils versus economic recovery", which is by the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses. I caution some of its readers and my hon. Friends that the underlying issue, in terms of dividing up nominal demand into growth and inflation, depends not just on what happens in wages council sectors but, more crucially, on the majority of people who are paid more than most of those in wages council sectors.
Three other articles are relevant. One is an article in The Observer on 24 March by Peter Kellner, talking about how my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals on national insurance contributions can add to the expectations for extra jobs and lower unemployment, especially with the impact on younger people in full-time work. He singles out retail business, hotel and catering, textiles, clothing and footwear among others. All these industries are in wages council sectors, and if one can give a double boost to employment opportunities in the sectors covered by wages councils, the insurance contribution changes, both for the employer and the employee, and the possible changes in the wages councils will make a good deal of difference.
For those who still doubt the impact of pay and jobs, especially among young people, there is an article in The Financial Times of 26 March, by Philip Bassett, describing what has happened in the electrical contracting industry.
I am sure that my hon. Friends will not mind if I do not pick up every point that they have made. Some of my hon. Friends as total abolitioners have put their case across in a way that is likely to attract the support of unemployed people looking for the bottom rung of the ladder. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) made that good point. Some have put a case that would convince the Conservative activists at a party conference, but that may be going down the line already set out by the Labour party, which is how it gets its approach to the country wrong, not to mention its approach to economic problems wrong. If the wages councils were to be totally abolished, I have no doubt that some people would find themselves, at least temporarily, in circumstances which it would be difficult to defend.
One needs to consider the conditions when the trade boards were originally set up. Towards the end of the last century, a House of Lords Select Committee characterised the "sweat" industries as those with unhygienic and unsafe conditions, very long hours and extremely low pay. Two-thirds of those who are covered by wages council orders now are part-time workers. The conditions in which people work are covered not by wages councils legislation but by other legislation. Those protections would remain, even if the Government were to propose the total abolition of the wages councils.
May I go on to point out that it is incredible that businesses are still covered by every single detail of wages council orders which can amount to 30 pages. The point was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington that, although three times a wages council statutory minimum rate may be paid, if any single condition is worse than that laid down under a wages council order, that employee would appear in the information which has been made available to the House as under-paid, and his employer would appear as one who under-paid.
There is clearly common ground about trying to improve the job prospects of young people. It is also quite clear that there are anomalies, confusions and complications that need to be tackled. Furthermore, there is the underlying problem of whether to implement radical reforms or total abolition. I hope that the debate will go wider than the one that has taken place during the last two hours and 59 minutes, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friends could arrange for future debates on this subject to take place at a rather better time of the night.
Whatever decision we eventually take, I should like to pay a big tribute to those who serve on the wages councils, especially the independent members, and to the wages inspectorate which does a very difficult job in a sensitive way. Both have served the country well. It is up to the House to decide what their future roles should be, but for the work that they do I thank them.

Orders of the Day — Voluntary Sector

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce a debate on the voluntary sector. The paucity of attendance in the House this morning and the fact that the few hon. Members who are in the Chamber seem to be leaving does not, I am sure, reflect any anxiety about the quality of the speeches in the forthcoming debate, which no doubt will be of the highest order. Nor, I hope, does it reflect the view that the subject which we are about to debate is other than of great importance.
The voluntary sector is not only a very important subject for debate; it is also a very large one. Very few people, if any, complete their journey through life without contact with the voluntary sector at some stage. It may be through active contact as a volunteer, or financial support as a donor, or as the user of services provided by a voluntary organisation. As it is for individuals, so it is for the state. Very few Government Departments can conduct their business from the beginning of one year to its end without coming into contact with the voluntary sector.
The Home Office is this morning represented on the Front Bench by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), who, I understand, has responsibility within the Home Office for the voluntary services unit, a unit that is very much involved with the development of the voluntary sector. The Home Office has legal responsibilities for charities. Through its responsibility for prisons, immigration and race relations, the Home Office also deals with a range of voluntary organisations.
Other Government Departments are also involved with the voluntary sector. The Treasury has an interest in charities and tax concessions. The Department of Education and Science has an extensive interest, not only in special and higher education, but in research. That Department gives direct financial support to many voluntary organisations for young people.
The Department of Employment is involved in community programmes, many of which impinge upon the voluntary sector. The Department of the Environment has a wide involvement through its work on inner city projects and with housing associations, local authorities, sport and historic buildings organisations. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office deals with overseas aid, in which voluntary agencies have a major role. Such agencies are free from political constraints and can do things which Governments cannot do.
The voluntary sector is also heavily connected with the DHSS. Organisations interested in health, disability, retired people and so on work with the DHSS. Even the Department of Trade and Industry — a less likely candidate—has a relationship with the voluntary sector through the Citizens Advice Bureaux and various consumer bodies. The Department of Transport deals with transport for disabled people. Even the Ministry of Defence has a relationship with the voluntary sector through its dealings with organisations helping former service personnel, such as the Royal British Legion.
That is not a comprehensive list. The Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and other Departments are also involved. When I came sixth in the ballot for today's debates, a Minister from another Department told me that he might


be responsible for answering the debate because of the extent of his Department's involvement with the voluntary sector.
It can faithfully and truthfully be said that the voluntary sector enriches our national life through its diversity, its innovative nature, and its capacity to attract and harness the talents and enthusiasm of many individuals. We should not shrink from acknowledging that the existence of the voluntary sector removes a burden from the state and saves money for the taxpayer by reducing the cost of providing services.
Celebrating that happy circumstance does not mean abandoning the Government's absolute responsibility to provide and finance a basic framework for education, health and social services, nor does it involve any weakening of the Conservatives' commitment to continue that provision. If using the voluntary sector cuts the cost to the taxpayer and releases resources which can be redirected to the most needy, the Government would be derelict in their duty if they failed to seize the opportunity.
The voluntary sector enriches the nation's life and brings greater fulfilment to many individuals. Participation in voluntary work is a source of inspiration and satisfaction to many. When I was still working in the City, I was a volunteer with the North Islington nursery School Trust. I was a trustee, and we set up a project to enable children of nursery school age from one-parent families to use a nursery school's facilities during the long summer holiday. My enthusiasm for that project communicated itself so much to my wife that she suggested that I should take a full-time job which would give me the opportunity to do that type of work more frequently. It was that which about a year later led to my applying for and being appointed as director of the Spastics Society.
Three characteristics strike me most forcefully about the voluntary sector. First, it is very large. Estimates of the annual expenditure range up to 3 per cent. of gross national product. These figures are difficult to be precise about, but there are thought to be over 100,000 people employed in the voluntary sector, besides the millions of volunteers. The second characteristic is the diversity of the voluntary sector. As the range of departmental responsibilities shows, nearly every aspect of life is covered. All age groups are involved. The voluntary sector is active at home and abroad.
The third characteristic is the innovative nature of the voluntary sector. From the time when the Churches were the first organisations to carry the message of European civilisation into other continents, through the post-war period when organisations such as the Spastics Society pioneered the new attempts to educate children who had previously been written off as ineducable because of their handicap, right up to the present day when a small charitable organisation called Comet is now harnessing microtechnology for the benefit of physically handicapped youngsters—at each stage the voluntary sector has had a fine record of innovation and initiative. It has often blazed a trail which the state has then followed. It has gone down routes which properly the state would not have pioneered on its own.
The voluntary sector also performs many functions which could not otherwise be undertaken. I give the example of the huge sums which are raised and spent on

medical research, cancer research and so on. The relationship between the voluntary sector and the Government—this is where we come to the nub of the debate—generally speaking has been a constructive one. Broadly speaking, there is, happily, a bipartisan approach politically. There is an attitude of co-operation on the part of all Governments. But in my view there is considerable scope for improvement in that relationship.
A number of questions are asked with increasing frequency. For example, where the voluntary sector receives finance direct from the Government, does it reflect the Government's own priorities and policy objectives? Is the Government's policy towards the voluntary sector clearly defined and co-ordinated? Is the voluntary sector sufficiently accountable for what it does? How could the voluntary sector obtain more support from business, and so on?
To understand those questions and to explore the answers, it is necessary to look at the relationship, particularly the financial relationship, between the state and the voluntary sector. There are three aspects to this relationship. First, there are the considerable tax concessions enjoyed by those voluntary organisations which are charities — and, of course, that is not all voluntary organisations, because some are not charities—embracing freedom from pretty well every kind of tax except VAT, on which I will touch later. Those concessions allow voluntary organisations a far greater use of their own financial resources and a greater facility to raise funds than they would have if they were not enjoying that status.
Those concessions are a way in which Government promote the voluntary sector generally. They do not discriminate, except, of course, where organisations fail to achieve charitable status. The precise value of these concessions is difficult to quantify, but I have seen estimates that they are worth perhaps £400 million a year—money that is lost to the revenue.
The second aspect of the financial relationship is the direct Government aid, grants which go from Government Departments into the voluntary sector. It is not easy to track down precisely how much those grants amount to. Various Members have asked a series of parliamentary questions, but we can only build up a picture in a piecemeal way, partly again because of the number of Government Departments involved. It could be estimated that the value of these grants is about £200 million per annum, although a certain amount depends on definition.
The third aspect of the financial relationship are those payments which are made by Government for services which they are legally obliged to provide; in other words, services that the Government must themselves provide but which they buy in from voluntary organisations on an agency basis. Most of those payments go from local authorities—such as fees for old people in residential homes or fees for handicapped children who attend special schools run by voluntary organisations — and those payments are a way of implementing Government policy.
What are the benefits to the Government of using the voluntary sector in this way? First, the general tax concessions promote voluntary giving. They attract resources into the voluntary sector for, say, medical research which otherwise would not be attracted or would have to be funded 100 per cent. by the state. Secondly,


specific grants made to voluntary organisations, and the payments made for services, should be a way of enabling the Government to get value for money.
Voluntary organisations are often cheaper in the provision of such services because they have attracted voluntary funds by way of donations and because they enjoy the help of many voluntary workers. I say that there should be a way of getting value for money, but that is not always the case, and I shall return to that subject later.
The third benefit for the Government is that the existence of the voluntary sector alongside the state provides an element of competition. Sometimes the voluntary sector can show that it does things better than the state. For example, the Tadworth Court children's hospital for the last year has been managed by a new charitable trust with backing in the form of a Government grant from the DHSS, and that hospital is now operating about 20 per cent. more cheaply than when it was part of the National Health Service. It is also attracting more children; more of the beds in the hospital have been used in the last year compared with the previous year, which was its last year as part of the NHS.
Given that there are these advantages and that they are widely acknowledged, I have four suggestions to improve the relationship between the state and the voluntary sector. These suggestions, if adopted, would, I believe, lead to a successful and substantial expansion of the voluntary sector, to the advantage of everybody.
My first suggestion concerns the support which business gives to the voluntary sector. This is an area of huge potential. Estimates provided by Business in the Community suggest that at present 0·1 per cent. of the pretax profits of companies in the United Kingdom are devoted to helping the voluntary sector. The comparative figure in the United States, again estimated by Business in the Community, is between 2 and 5 per cent. of pre-tax profits. As the Financial Times commented in August of last year, by comparison with the US the sums here are miserly. Even if we take the bottom end of that range, it looks as though about 20 times more support goes from business in America than it does in this country.
In drawing attention to that, I do not want to appear critical of business, because many splendid projects are under way. Project "Full Employ", which was started as long ago as 1973 by a group of City institutions and banks, can train up to 1,000 people a year, a large number of them from ethnic minority backgrounds, and it claims a success rate of 75 per cent. in achieving permanent placements.
Another example is the strong support that we have seen recently for enterprise agencies. The business community supplies these agencies with cash and management, through secondments. An example of that is the joint initiative taken by Legal and General Assurance, Citibank and the Abbey National in their backing of Lenta housing, which is the non-profit making subsidiary of the London Enterprise Agency, which is investing in residential housing in Brixton. Those are a couple of excellent examples, and there are many others.
I am still left with the strong impression that more could be done. To facilitate the expansion of business involvement, and to promote what might be called corporate social responsibility, three actions should be taken. First, we need to improve the tax incentives for corporate giving. All charitable donations made by a company up to a limit of, say, 10 per cent. of its pre-tax profits should be made tax-deductible. The cost of

granting such a concession would reduce as corporation tax rates come down to 35 per cent., as announced in the Budget last year.
At the moment the difficulty for business is that if it wishes to make its donation tax-deductible it has to make the donation under a four-year covenant. Covenants, although a suitable and desirable way for individuals to give money to charity, are less suitable for businesses because the nature of corporate income is that it tends to be less reliable and to fluctuate more than an individual's salary.
Secondly, we should clarify those activities which are eligible for business help on a tax-deductible basis. That help could be in the form of cash and of management who are seconded. The charitable definition is somewhat restrictive. We have seen this recently. Only at the end of 1983 were organisations promoting harmonious race relations able to achieve charitable status. Even today, an organisation whose sole objective is the reduction of unemployment may encounter difficulty in securing charitable status. So we should either reform or reinterpret charity law to allow a quicker and clearer definition of what constitutes charitable activity.
Perhaps a faster and simpler solution to the problem would be to identify those areas where corporate expenditure could be made tax-deductible, as it is now for enterprise agencies. After appropriate consultation, the Government could define those areas in which they believed expenditure could be made tax-deductible. It might involve expenditure in inner cities. After all, the business community responded positively to the problems in Liverpool. It might be expenditure designed to reduce unemployment or expenditure on the arts. Some areas could be designated on a permanent basis and others perhaps on a temporary basis, if there were particular problems in a geographical locality as a result of a business withdrawing as a large employer.
The third change I should like to see to promote business interest in the voluntary sector follows on from the second. If we were to prevent abuses from extending the area to which businesses could contribute on a tax-deductible basis, we should require greater disclosure in the annual reports of those companies that took advantage of the tax concessions. The annual report and accounts would be subject to audit. This could replace the very limited and narrow disclosure which confines itself to a statement on charitable donations.
If the incentives were improved, I am confident that the business community would respond positively. In my constituency and elsewhere, one consequence of the high level of unemployment is a much greater feeling of responsibility on the part of employed and privileged people, particularly in the business community, towards the problems of the unemployed and the under-privileged. The existence of what we might call a 1 per cent. club of major companies which would pledge themselves to give, say, 1 per cent. of their profits before tax, would, if widely adopted, increase tenfold the level of corporate support.
I am not advocating here any extra Government funding. It is important to get that clear. To the extent that corporation tax revenue was lost to the Government because of businesses taking advantage of the scheme, since the areas into which the extra payments were made would be identified in the companies' accounts, it would be possible for the Government, if they were providing direct funding in those areas, to reduce their contribution


correspondingly. In the arts, for example, there might be substantial scope for Government savings if their expenditure was offset by additional business support.
This would be advantageous because, for every £100 spent by business, the Government would lose only £35 in corporation tax. Therefore, even if they decided to cut their support for that area by the full £35, almost three times as much money would go into the area, because of the contribution made by business. There is a sort of beneficial multiplier effect. The effect would be to reduce total public expenditure, although not to reduce the PSBR, because there would be a matching fall in revenue and expenditure.
More importantly, this process would transfer decision making to the private sector. I believe that the private sector is generally likely to be more responsive and less bureaucratic than the public sector. Local private sector decisions, with the benefit of some management expertise provided by the business community and injected into the voluntary sector, are likely to produce more cost-effective results than a Government Department sitting in London trying to supervise and monitor the performance of the voluntary organisations to which it gives money. One worthwhile spin-off could be the development of local voluntary trusts of the sort advocated by Mrs. Felicity Craven.
I may come into slightly more conflict with Government thinking with my next suggestion—that we should remove the remaining tax burden from the voluntary sector. I do not wish to make that a major part of my speech, because my views are already well known. VAT is a real burden on charities. In the 1983 Budget, the inclusion of building alterations for VAT purposes had a major effect on charities. Many charities are unable to acquire new buildings or build from scratch. They are frequently involved in the adaptation of old buildings which may have been received as part of a legacy. A considerable extra tax bill was imposed on charities in the 1983 Budget.
I have to admit that I overlooked the fact that in the latest Budget the extension of VAT to press advertising represents a further major financial blow to charities which rely heavily on the use of press advertisements for their fund-raising programmes. New organisations and charities that had not previously been worried about VAT, because their activities had mostly taken place abroad, are now concerned with this problem
VAT is an anomaly for charities, because it is one respect in which they are treated less favourably for tax purposes than commercial companies, which can usually offset their inputs and outputs, and local authorities, for which there is a mechanism for recovery of VAT. It would not be administratively complex to grant relief from VAT, as has sometimes been claimed
Even if it is impossible for the Government to grant blanket relief from VAT, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ask Treasury Ministers to look again at the specific shopping list which the Charities VAT Reform Group submitted before the Budget at the Treasury's request. The group suggested that, where VAT is paid on building alterations that are required because of new fire regulations, VAT should be recoverable by charities. VAT remains a real problem and a substantial cash drain.
My next suggestion for improving the voluntary sector is aimed at the voluntary sector itself, but it has a dimension where Government action could help. It concerns the accountability of voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend the Minister will already be aware of my concern about the lack of accountability of charities and voluntary organisations. Last summer, I introduced a ten-minute Bill which dealt with certain aspects, such as the need for charities to file regular, up-to-date accounts.
It is astonishing that the public have normally no opportunity to inspect the accounts of charities. Charities over a certain size should be required to have an independent audit of their accounts. Larger charities should have independent qualified audits. There is a need for a compulsory and universal register of all charities, instead of the somewhat incomplete system, which is at present confined to England and Wales. I have previously stressed the desirability of giving financial supporters of charities the right to attend annual general meetings.
I welcome those aspects of the Charities Bill, which has passed through all its stages in the House of Lords and has received a Second Reading in the House of Commons, that strengthen the accountability of small charities. Last year's report of the evidence received by a House of Lords, Select Committee clearly bore out my previously stated views about the need for greater accountability within the voluntary sector.
All the issues that I have mentioned in this section could be dealt with by simple legislation and I continue to urge my hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office to consider introducing such legislation during the lifetime of this Parliament.
I have one other suggestion on the subject of accountability and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will be glad to know that it does not involve any legislation or Government expenditure. It is an initiative which the voluntary sector itself could undertake off its own bat, and it is modelled on existing practice in the United States.
In the United States there is an organisation called the National Information Bureau which has for many years been providing an advisory service to prospective donors with the aim of, first, maintaining high standards in the voluntary sector and, secondly, aiding wise and well-informed giving. The bureau issues advisory reports on voluntary organisations, evaluating their performance against eight basic standards, which one listed in the leaflet which I have here.
These relate to the membership of the board of the organisation; the clarity with which the aims of the organisation are stated, whether its programme of activities is relevant to those aims; whether its administrative and management expenses are reasonable; whether its promotional and publicity material is ethically based; whether its fund-raising is conducted in an efficient and proper manner; whether is is adequately accountable—the statements made in its annual report, and so on, are scrutinised; and, finally, whether it draws up an annual budget in a form which is consistent with the other criteria.
The results of that scrutiny are reports which are of great value to people and companies thinking of making donations — and indeed can be of great value to the organisations themselves—and I believe that we could well follow that model. If in this country large donors were able to link up with a few large charities initially and with appropriate professional help, a suitable list of criteria


could be compiled for application to voluntary organisations in Britain. Then such organisations could submit themselves on a voluntary basis for scrutiny.
No legislation or Government funding would be needed for this, although perhaps an advisory input from the VSU or the Charity Commission would he helpful. Provided that the large donors were willing to fund this exercise—it would be in their interests to do so, because they would then be able to make their donations on a more informed basis—the cost, which would anyway be fairly small, would not fall on the charities themselves.
My fourth, and final suggestion concerns Government rather more directly. It is a plea for a more clearly co-ordinated approach by the Government towards the voluntary sector. Of course, I am not suggesting that there is no co-ordination at the present time. I am well aware of the role of the Voluntary Services Unit and I understand that ministerial meetings do take place from time to time between Departments. Also, I do not want to give the impression that I am seeking some sort of Government-imposed uniformity for the voluntary sector, whose strength lies in its diversity, its plurality and perhaps even its untidiness. But I am concerned that the Government are not necessarily getting the best out of the voluntary sector.
It appears, for example, that different Departments have a very different approach to the question of how their direct grants should be made. The Department of the Environment appears to have a straightforward approach. I see from a written answer of 10 December 1984 that the Under-Secretary of State said that his Department's grants were intended to assist national and regional voluntary organisations carrying out activities which furthered the Department's policy objectives. There is nothing very surprising or exceptional in that.
Other Departments have a different, sometimes rather more stringent and narrow, approach. On the face of it, for example, to secure a DHSS grant under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, one has to do more than just carry out activities which further the Department's policy objectives. I know that from experience, having tried to apply for such grants on behalf of the Spastics Society.
Within the criteria laid down by particular Government Departments, it is not always clear to the outside world why one organisation is selected in preference to another. My own view is that Government support should be concentrated, where possible, on organisations whose work is not particularly eye-catching or emotive, because organisations that have such activities ought to be able to fund them elsewhere.
In general, smaller organisations should be preferred to larger organisations. I understand that the criteria applied by the VSU are that either it must be a national organisation whose work spans the interests of several Government Departments, or falls outside the interests of one specific Department. Alternatively, it could be a local body engaged in a local project that is innovatory and likely to have national significance, or an organisation working in an area of social priority for which alternative funds are expected to be available in due course. I would be interested if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister elucidated to the House what leads his Department to choose one individual organisation as opposed to another, given that those criteria are satisfied
I should also be interested to know what comparative measure, if any, is made of the relative efficiency of

different voluntary organisations. Quite a few organisations receive grants from more than one Government Department. No doubt they serve more than one Department, but it would be interesting to know what, if any, co-ordination takes place between the two or more Departments that are funding the same organisation.
Before I came to the House, in the days when I was engaged in full-time work in the voluntary sector, many of the voluntary organisations that I talked to found the process of applying for grants rather confusing. The criteria for success were hard to understand. The decision-making process, on occasion, was rather slow. That concern remains today.
I should like to mention one current applicant without, I hope, damaging its chances for a Department of Health and Social Security grant. It is the Campaign for Mentally Handicapped, a small organisation that does unemotive work. It is doing research into the ways in which mentally handicapped people can be brought out into the community. It is not involved in the provision of services, but is working in an area of stated Government priority. I find it hard to understand why a fairly small application for such an organisation should encounter much resistence when larger organisations, the work of which might be thought to be rather more emotive or appealing to private donors, appear to achieve ready success in large applications to the DHSS.
Therefore, there is sometimes a question mark over the coherence of the Government's policy towards the voluntary sector. That also applies at the macro level. For example, is proper attention paid to the potential role of the voluntary sector when new Government policies are determined? Are we making as much use as we could of the voluntary sector in fighting unemployment?
Let me take a specific example. The Government's policy on care in the community, widely supported, involves many voluntary organisations whose normal relationship would be with Departments other than the DHSS, which is the lead Department for that policy. Housing associations and bodies concerned with sheltered housing have a function relating to the care in the community policy. Transport and employment organisations do. All those bodies, as well as the DHSS-related voluntary organisations, could be involved. Is there a stage at which the impact of the voluntary sector on a policy such as care in the community is discussed interdepartmentally? Is it at an early stage? Such discussion would be needed if the Government were to get the best value for money from the voluntary sector.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: If my hon. Friend does not have this information, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will supply it later. When the Voluntary Services Unit was originally established in the Civil Service Department, there was regular liaison between officers at assistant secretary level, in Government Departments, during which such matters were regularly discussed. I am ignorant as to whether it continues, but if it does not, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to revive it.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not know the answer to that question, but no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to enlighten us when he replies to the debate.
I summarise my four suggestions. First, I suggest more business involvement — the promotion of corporate


social responsibility. Secondly, I suggest the removal of the remaining tax burden. Thirdly, there should be greater accountability in the voluntary sector, and, fourthly, better co-ordination of Government policy.
My final point concerns the Local Government Bill, which will be debated in the House later this week. Real concern has been expressed by the voluntary sector about the consequences of the abolition of the Greater London council. I hope that the Government will pay heed to it. Of course, it is high time that we stopped wasting taxpayers' and ratepayers' money on many of the absolutely loony organisations that have been supported by the GLC. But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. We must make sure that the important work that is done by genuine organisations, which is funded by the GLC, is able to continue.
The voluntary sector already plays a very distinguished, valuable and major part in our national life. I believe that that role could be further developed and expanded, and the suggestions that I have made this morning are designed to achieve that end.

7 am

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on raising an important issue, even though he has the misfortune to do so at this time of the morning. I listened with interest to what he said and noted his comments about the size of the voluntary sector, its diversity and its innovative nature.
The voluntary sector can sometimes be local and sometimes national—it can even be international. At all those levels there may be a relationship between the state and a voluntary organisation. I was a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not develop the relationship between voluntary organisations and local authorities. He concentrated more on the national rather than the local level. From what I know of the voluntary sector, a great number of organisations have their main activities at a local level and, to some extent, depend for their funding on local authorities.
The other dimension is the European social fund. It is another confused set of arrangements and many voluntary organisations are unable to derive full benefit from it. However, that is a subject for another day.
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about business support, although he did not tell us why business should find it possible to increase its level of support. I understand the argument about taxation, but there must be a different attitude by business if it is to increase its support for many of these worthwhile activities.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more than we do about what would make business more energetic. Before I entered the House I was involved in a community relations council. We had the support of a large multinational organisation, which seconded to us one of its computer executives who moved from the world of selling computer systems to community relations in an inner-city area. It was a tremendous shock to him, but also, I hope, of great benefit to his subsequent business career. Alas, that does not happen often. I am not convinced that many organisations would be so generous as to second their staff.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the VAT burden. The voluntary sector has four specific advantages and four things to offer which the state—either through central or local government—cannot easily emulate. The first is the experimental and innovative nature of much voluntary work. At a local level it is impressive how voluntary organisations can experiment and try new things that a local authority would find it hard to do.
Secondly, there is the speed of response by the voluntary sector. It can get projects off the ground very quickly while the state, understandably, finds that more difficult.
Thirdly, a voluntary or community organisation has a particular strength as it can involve local people in its activities in a way that a local authority seldom can. It can achieve a level of commitment and interest which is healthy for a community. This is because it makes it feel that a project or activity belongs to it and not to a remote town hall or to central government. That is a great strength of voluntary organisations. If it is developed, it gives them the ability to call on a wider range of support in the community and to get more people involved, or to have a better awareness of the problems in the community. By having so many feelers in the local area, there is an ability to understand quickly and sensitively what is happening.
Lastly — I do not press this argument too strongly when we have a Government who are trying to cut public expenditure all over the place—some of the community groups and organisatons provide good value for money in what they are able to achieve. It should be remembered that they often operate on a shoestring.
Unfortunately, there are a number of difficulties. The hon. Member for Suffolk, South indulged in the familiar game of knocking the GLC. I think that he knows better than to do that really. If we were to go through the list of projects and voluntary organisations that are supported by the GLC, the difference between us would probably be confined to 1 per cent. of all GLC grants. I am not conceding that the 1 per cent. are wasteful or loony, as I think the hon. Gentleman described them. I am saying that the bulk of the money that is provided by the GLC is not directed to controversial areas. It is channelled to worthwhile activities and to organisations that are fearful for their future.
The Minister knows that many organisations in the black community, for example, have been funded by the GLC and have done useful work. That has happened because of the far-sighted work of the GLC. These organisations are extremely concerned about what will happen if the GLC is abolished. No arrangements have been made for their future or for that of the many other organisations that are similarly funded by the GLC.
The second area of uncertainty is that of urban aid. Many voluntary organisations depend upon it and they face uncertainty because the way in which the funding operates does not give them a guaranteed financial basis in future.
An area of enormous political controversy between the two sides of the House that comes to the surface at intervals concerns the accusations that are made by Conservative Members that some voluntary organisations are too political in their activities and adopt something of a campaigning stance. I do not wish to spend too much time on this argument. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he did not mention the issue.
Over the years some voluntary organisations have found themselves in difficulty, and in my opinion unfairly so. By their very nature, organisations that are active in and dissatisfied with the care of the mentally ill, or the provision of legal services in the community, for example, are bound to adopt a somewhat political stance. If there is a feeling that these organisations operate a little to the left of the political centre rather than to the right of it, I do not think that that is a reason for being as hard on them as some Conservative controlled local authorities and some Conservative Ministers have been.

Mr. Rowe: I take the hon. Member's argument, but I should hate him to feel that that is only because these organisations sometimes have a stance to the left of the political centre. There have been many occasions, especially at local government level, when Labour councillors have found themselves extremely annoyed by what they regard as the political activities of voluntary organisations.

Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman says so and that must be true, although I cannot think of any examples. However, if I press him to do so he will no doubt want to intervene again to give me some.
Organisations which have their roots in the community are bound to take a somewhat campaigning stance. It is not sensible for politicians to jump on them immediately if they feel that their local authorities are providing funding. Organisations have to toe the line or at least shut up on some of these issues. I think that that is asking too much of community activists. Mercifully, such criticisms are not made very often, but they surface from time to time.
Another aspect is the relationship between voluntary organisations and political parties, and indeed the House itself. I suppose that political parties could be defined as voluntary organisations, but I shall not pursue that line. Members of Parliament have cause to be grateful to the voluntary organisations. Many of the all-party groups in the House depend for their ability to function on the generosity of voluntary bodies in providing the secretarial back-up to enable us to be effective Back Bench groups. One thinks of the all-party penal affairs group, the all-party disablement group, the all-party group for pensioners, and so on. In a sense, Parliament is run on a shoestring and we should be grateful that information comes to Members, especially Back Benchers with specialised interests, because voluntary organisations are willing to invest the time necessary to educate Members of Parliament and to keep us properly informed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: And the political parties.

Mr. Dubs: In that sense, of course, political parties are voluntary organisations and provide the wherewithal for the operation of our political system. Indeed, I believe that we are not generous enough to them. I should certainly like a different approach to the funding of political parties in this country, but that is wider than the subject with which the hon. Member for Suffolk, South sought to deal.
Members of Parliament, especially when in opposition, also depend on voluntary organisations for briefing on the details of legislation. Some of them may be something of a red rag to the Minister because they make his life more difficult, but they also make Parliament more effective. The National Council for Civil Liberties, for example, has

been enormously helpful in alerting Members of all parties to the dangers and anti-civil-libertarian aspects of certain legislation. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants — no doubt the Minister's favourite organisation — provides help for individuals with immigration problems and offers helpful criticism of legislation. There is also the Legal Action Group and dozens of others, all of which help Members of Parliament. Without them our debates would be less well informed, and we should be the poorer for that. I mention that dimension as I should like to express my gratitude to the many organisations which go out of their way to help us and to provide back-up information and briefings at very short notice, although I appreciate that those matters are some distance away from the starting point of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South.
In conclusion, I believe that voluntary organisations or community groups, however one defines them, play a very important role and I should like to see more generosity to that sector by the Government — and by local authorities, if only they were not inhibited by the lack of Government money and the tight controls imposed on local government by central Government. We need more generosity and more understanding of what the voluntary sector does and the useful role that it has to play.
An element of certainty in the funding is also necessary because it is unreasonable to expect voluntary bodies to plan ahead and look to the long-term if they do not know from one year to the next whether they have any basis for their operations.
I am looking to the Minister for a generous response and an understanding of what the voluntary sector does and its important contribution in the community and at national level so that it can operate with a bit more certainty in the knowledge that the Government back what it does, even if they are sometimes critical of some of its activities.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): This has been a good debate and I shall do my best not to spoil it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) raised so many interesting and important issues that his was the type of speech that people will go away and read, digest and make their minds up on rather than come to swift conclusions about. I recognise his expertise and feel humble. As the Minister with my responsibilities but having never worked in the voluntary sector, I am at a disadvantage and have a great deal to learn from my hon. Friend. The House is fortunate to have had the benefit of my hon. Friend's long experience in the world of charities. I shall read carefully all that he said.
There should be no mistake about the fact that the Government recognise the enormously valuable work done by the voluntary sector. In our 1979 manifesto we referred to our determination to encourage the voluntary movement. Nobody who looks at the figures can doubt that that is what we have done. During the past few years, in the interest of the fight against inflation and the laying of the foundations for economic recovery, there have had to be considerable constraints on public expenditure. In spite of those constraints, Government support for an enormous range of voluntary bodies, embracing the whole gamut of voluntary endeavour, has increased considerably.
Leaving aside the £300 million spent by the Manpower Services Commission on training and employment


projects provided by voluntary bodies and considerable grants by non-departmental public bodies such as the Arts Council, Government grants in 1983–84 totalled more than £182 million. That represents an increase in cash terms of 95 per cent. and an increase in real terms of 35 per cent. over 1979–80.
I have been presented with a table which I am sure is pretty accurate. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that it is not always easy to get accurate figures and to decide what is grant, what is payment for service and the rest. No doubt the table will emerge in Hansard as the answer to a parliamentary question, but if my hon. Friend is interested, I shall let him have it.
We know less than we should like about local authority funding of voluntary bodies. Taking grants and payments for services together, in 1982–83, social service authorities in England spent about £110 million, but there was less easily identifiable funding for education, the youth service, to ethnic minority groups, the arts, environmental bodies, advice centres—the list is almost endless. We all know examples of local authority grant giving which some of us criticise as being plain eccentric, but the great majority of authorities adopt a thoroughly sensible approach and the great majority of grants have gone to thoroughly useful organisations.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said about that. I agree with him that many local voluntary services are of enormous value and fulfil a unique role that cannot be fulfilled either by central Government or a local authority. They can be sensitive and informal in a way in which a statutory body cannot, they can reach out to those who may be wary of officialdom, and they can help people to tackle the problems of their communities.
Recently the Government's policies for local government have often been portrayed as a threat to the support by local authorities of voluntary bodies, but once councils have adjusted to their new post-abolition responsibilities and thought how to make the best use of their necessarily limited resources, those fears will be found to be groundless, and we shall find that the voluntary sector has not lost out.
It would not be appropriate for me to get greatly involved in the debate about abolition, because we shall be talking about little else during the next two days. I merely remind the House that steps have already been taken to strengthen the collective grant giving arrangements. Various undertakings have been given about the reconsideration of the upper limit on collective grant giving. There is also transitional funding and the undertakings given about the targets for successor districts taking into account new responsibilities.
However, we need to draw in new resources if we are to see even further beneficial expansion of the voluntary sector to all those areas where it has proved itself so able to help the community. That means stimulating support from individuals and the wealth-creating sector of the economy.
Many charities demonstrate the art of successful fundraising. My hon. Friend, as former director of the Spastic Society, knows all about that. The Government should do what we can to encourage people to give to charities, and to encourage charities and other voluntary bodies to tap the resources which are undoubtedly available. As the

Government we have introduced increased tax reliefs for charities and tax incentives for donors, and publicised them so that small and large charities can profit from them. My hon. Friend will know about the little booklet "Tax Benefits for Charities" published by Voluntary Services Unit, which provides answers to questions, such as, what changes have the Government made to help charities since 1980, what tax reliefs are available for charities, and what tax incentives are there for donors?
I am glad that the booklet has had to be reprinted. I am told that the demand for copies shows little sign of falling off. That is therefore a success for VSU. I am glad that it is there to remind people of the changes that we have made. As my hon. Friend said, we have reduced the minimum period of a covenant which qualifies for tax relief to four years. We have exempted direct gifts and bequests to charities from capital transfer tax, and enabled a company to claim tax relief on the salary of an employee while he or she is seconded to a charity. Recently there has been more good news with the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing in his Budget that higher and additional rate tax relief on annual gross covenanted payments will be raised from £5,000 to £10,000.
My hon. Friend says that there should be more incentives for corporate giving, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear his words in mind. He also asked for further VAT relief for charities. He will have heard this answer before, but it is a fairly good one and should go on the record in view of what my hon. Friend said.
The main complaint of charities is that they must bear VAT on their non-business purchases, and they have been lobbying for some years for a special refund mechanism. Although limited schemes to benefit some sorts of charities have been put forward from time to time, it is clear from discussions with the VAT Reform Group that, in practice, relief would have to apply to all charities, since no method of discrimination would be acceptable to all charities generally. The number of charities which would seek to benefit from a general relief is estimated as at least 100,000, and its administration would be complicated and expensive in terms of staff.
The cost in revenue terms would also be significant. Charities would benefit unequally, with controversial charities or those with limited objectives benefiting as much as or more than those with wide public support. In short, indiscriminate VAT relief would be an inefficient and expensive way of helping charities. But the Government recognise the valuable work that they do, which is why they have preferred to use limited resources in other ways, some of which I have just outlined.
There is a potential for company giving that we have hardly begun to develop. Bearing in mind the fact that by no means all voluntary bodies supported by industry are charities, we must, therefore, treat with a little caution figures that relate only to charities, but I believe the following figures to be pretty startling. They are the figures given by the Charities Aid Foundation, which I am sure my hon. Friend knew when he quoted the other figures from Business in the Community. The Charities Aid Foundation says that the top 200 corporate donors to registered charities gave £34 million in 1982–83, which represents only 0·21 per cent. of profits before tax. In 1983 in the United States of America, corporate contributions amounted to $3·1 billion, which — according to the Charities Aid Foundation, whose mathematics is bound to


be right—represented 1·51 per cent. of pre-tax profits. The figures given by my hon. Friend are even more disappointing.
But progress is being made. The fast-growing local enterprise agency movement represents a major voluntary contribution by business in Britain to job creation through help to small businesses and the self-employed. Public-spirited businesses—the sort that join Business in the Community, that help not just their local enterprise agencies, but local environmental or social groups and, indeed, young musicians and artists—are growing in number. The discernment which they show in making their contributions, be it by grant, sponsorship, secondment or other help in kind, is there for all to see.
We are interested, too, in the idea that experimental community trusts might be able, as in America, to stimulate new giving to charities and charitable groups at local level.
I have said that the Government have the clear objective of encouraging the voluntary movement; and there are various means — grants, payments for services, fiscal reliefs and other financial advantages and incentives—which we may use, according to circumstances, to help useful organisations and to create the right climate for voluntary sector growth. We have a principle that grants should normally be given by those responsible for policies or services because they can best judge whether the recipients are giving value for money. Our style of grant-giving emphasises the need to ensure that grants go to bodies with the capacity to manage their work cost-effectively and to set and achieve realistic objectives.
I am not sure how much real scope there is for more co-ordination between Departments. This has always worried me. The VSU is in the Home Office, and I am the Minister with a special concern for the general health of the voluntary sector and our dealings with it. Because of that, I have regular meetings with those of my colleagues whose work brings them in close contact with the voluntary sector. I am not, and could not be, a Minister charged with working out a common policy towards grant giving. My hon. Friend showed how enormously varied are the bodies that are supported by different Departments, and my colleagues know better than anyone else how money can best be spent. We can learn from each other, and by meeting we can try to create conditions in which useful, voluntary bodies can flourish.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Minister has raised an important point about co-ordination, which

can be a minefield. Referral bodies can be brought in to make the work of parliamentarians easier, and to bring to their attention the problems in their communities. Co-ordination is of prime importance, whether it be with the Home Office, the Department of the Environment or any other. There is a great need for co-ordination that will explain in simple and explicit terms to voluntary organisations the path that they have to follow to gain the advantages that are there to help those bodies to function. There is a great deal of concern about the transitional period that may occur with the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. I hope that the Minister will take on board what he has said about the need for coordination so that th benefits for those who play a useful part in community with referrals will continue.

Mr. Waddington: It is the responsibility of the Department that is financing a voluntary body to have a close relationship with that body so that there is understanding as to what is intended. I was concentrating on the difficulties of laying down a policy of grant giving to voluntary bodies, which will be appropriate for the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security. I doubt whether it is possible to lay down a policy in that way.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South said about the desirability of funding small rather than large bodies, if I understood the importance of what my hon. Friend was saying, when he said that it was probably better to fund less eye-catching bodies rather than the more glamorous. However, one cannot develop that into a policy for Government, controlling what one particular Department should do. Each Department is aware, or should be aware, of how volunteers and the voluntary sector can help them in the carrying out of their statutory responsibilities, and can fulfil needs that cannot be met by the statutory bodies.
I hope that what I have said shows that the Government take the question of the relationship between the state and the voluntary sector seriously. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to put on record some of our ideas about this complex, ever-changing but durable relationship. I shall go away from the debate weary, but happy to have listened to my hon. Friend and Labour Members. We sometimes quarrel, though tonight there was a recognition on both sides of the House of the valuable work that is done in the community by the voluntary sector.

Orders of the Day — Education

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Occasions such as this provide an opportunity to release bees from Back Bench bonnets to buzz busily around the Chamber. Sometimes, one hopes, their sound may be heard more widely outside. Sometimes, too, they provide opportunities for the emission of Back-Bench spleen against Ministers, so I am particularly pleased to pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his team. It is my serious belief that the present Secretary of State could well go down in history as one of the most effective and genuinely reforming Ministers of Education. But the task facing my right hon. Friend and all of us in truly formidable.
Let me begin by making this point. When a man is encased in plaster from head to foot it is demonstrably absurd to berate him for not moving more easily. An unattractive feature of the present educational debate—I fear that some of my hon. Friends have a share in that unattractiveness—is the widespread readiness to attack teachers. Teachers are immured in a straitjacket made up of institutional rigidities, definitional rigidities and a strangely out-of-date blindness to the whole range of opportunities which would in other circumstances be open to them. They are not, for the most part, idle. Many work very hard indeed, well beyond the narrow terms of their paper contract. But too many of them are weary, stale or disenchanted. It is my purpose in this debate to seek relief for them rather than to denigrate them.
It is time to move, and to move fast. The Secretary of State has taken a number of bold steps, but there is much more to be done. The report of the National Economic Development Council and the Manpower Services Commission—Competence and Competition—tells us that 50 per cent. of the British workforce has not even the equivalent of one CSE pass. And what employer values one CSE pass? In 1981, 52 to 60 per cent. of our 16 to 18 year-olds were in education, against 86 per cent. in Germany and 91 per cent. in Japan. If I may be allowed to adapt H. G. Wells, British history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
Yet we do have room for manoeuvre within our present resources, so we must look for a moment at what those resources are. They include, of course teachers. But teachers are faced with the trauma of falling rolls: 7–8 million children in schools in 1984, a projected 7–1 million in 1991. They are faced with stagnation in preferment. It is very hard indeed for the average teacher now to see himself or herself in a post that represents promotion. Teachers are also faced with rigidities in the structure. It is extremely hard and unusual, for all sorts of reasons, for teachers to move between one sector of education and another. Teachers are faced, too, with constant demands for changes in their role.
To give some examples, many teachers are much less subject oriented than they were when they came out of teacher training college. They are expected to be much more concerned with passing on skills and, in some mystical way, with the growing up of their pupils to an extent which parents used to feel was much more their role than some do now. Teachers have much less authority and much less parental support. As the school leaving age rises, so do the height, weight and truculence of many of

the pupils. Teachers therefore are regarded with less esteem in society, although they have made tremendous efforts to create an all-graduate profession.
Teachers and others are unclear about their job definition. In school and out of school, in class and out of class, they are unclear. At the heart of the present unfortunate and unattractive dispute lies an anxiety about the definition of the teacher's role and job.
Further education is bigger than it has ever been. It involves 80,000 full-time academic staff and an unknown number of part-timers. The Manpower Services Commission is spending more than the whole of the further education budget on tasks which hitherto would have been done by further education rather than some outside organisation.
There has been an explosion in courses and qualifications. An extraordinary incoherence and obsolescence exists. Many courses and qualifications are too narrowly based, too backward looking and too long in the acquiring. I therefore warmly welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Employment of a full-scale inquiry into qualifications.
The number of home students has increased by 60,000 since 1979–80. That is encouraging, and yet people on the dole are unable to afford self-improvement, even to meet declared needs in the market, because of the crippling loss of benefit which might result. I hope that the Government will seriously re-examine that aspect urgently.
Higher education is perhaps our most inefficient sector. It is large with 31,499 full-time staff and 2,739 part-timers. However, causes for anxiety exist. When selecting students, universities depend heavily on "O" levels and head teachers' reports, which almost by definition are biased because it is good for a school if its pupils are accepted by universities.
The system of "O" levels is also an inadequate basis for assessing whether a student will make a success of university. I know from my experience as a university teacher that one of the most depressing features of teaching in universities is the number of young people who arrive at university with their intellectual curiosity already dead. One carries them through an over-taught course so that they receive a qualification when one should be stimulating and exciting them with intellectual curiosity. Many colleges and universities do not even interview potential students and are wholly dependent upon inadequate selection procedures.
It is too easy in some subjects and in some universities—but less so in polytechnics—to coast through on the basis of a good schooling. I wonder whether, in an era when young people will have to re-educate themselves throughout their lives, it is necessary to take three or four years to turn out people with only the basis of a qualification to which they will have to add later to be employable. Secondly, they retain too many inadequate students. There is virtually no counselling out of university. At £5,000 to £6,000 per annum, the business of keeping on a student who at the end of the first year is causing enormous anxiety to the course and to the teachers on the course, with the sense at the end of the third of fourth year that any inadequacy that he displays in his examinations is a direct consequence of the incompetence of the teaching so that one feels responsible to the student and allows him to graduate, is not an efficient way of running a part of the education system for which there is still intense competition.
It is worth reflecting that in the United States as many as 50 per cent. of students drop out, but 35 to 40 per cent. more go to university. It may be that somewhere in that discrepancy between us and the United States there is room for adjustment.
I believe that in many colleges and universities the examinations procedures are still grossly inadequate. They are too dependent on written tests and on asking what one knows, not what one can do.
There is a lot of room for argument about how much each of these resources which I have enumerated should be pruned, expanded, controlled or given more autonomy. However, I think that there is no room for argument that, as a nation, we are on the edge of a gigantic expansion in demand, call it what you will. Throughout the country pensioners, the unemployed and wage earners in their growing spare time are taking courses in everything under the sun, in classes, on video, increasingly by cable, as well as through the traditional medium of books. People in work are seeking to diversify their skills, employers to upgrade their work force's skills. Re-education and training is the name of the game, and what a rapidly growing game. Why, then, are our existing teaching resources locked into what is seen as steadily narrowing cul-de-sacs when out there is a whole world to conquer?
There is some interchange between schools and further education, employers and further education, universities and industry, but this depends entirely on local personalities, and not on any coherent national or regional strategy. In this morass, it is not surprising therefore that the Government have used the Manpower Services Commission as their principal agent for change, but how bad that must be for the morale of teachers in the education service.
When the MSC gave evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, the chairman declared that he felt strongly that he had a dotted line of responsibility to the Secretary of State for Education and Science as well as a solid line of accountability to the Secretary of State for Employment. I should like to ask how real the dotted line is, and to what extent the MSC with its many tasks is effectively able to keep in close touch with the Department of Education and Science.
If I may give one small example of the rigidities that I should like to see broken down, Lady Warnock the other day said rather well that teachers are finding themselves increasingly unable to stay in teaching—the job which they like to do—because in order to make a living they have to go into administration. She suggested, among other recourses, that they might go into teacher training colleges. I believe that would be one minor but important rigidity reduced.
We have to look for new boundary definitions. We have falling rolls and empty school buildings, and at the same time inadequate training provision by and for private employers. That by itself is a demonstration of the need for imagination.
When the members of the Select Committee on Employment visited a private recruitment agency recently they discovered that the differential between the price payable to staff capable of operating expensive modern machinery such as word processors and those who were still stuck to their typewriters was so great that it was worth the agency's while to provide a sophisticated training

course with one tutor to three students. So great was the demand for the course that the agency decide to expand the operation.
There is scope for placing that kind of resource within the campuses of schools. Training colleges work mostly at evenings and weekends, so that sophisticated expensive machinery—which, by its nature, has a short life span —can be available to schools. The agencies would have access to some of the brighter pupils at a young age and the schools would be able to make use of the machinery. There is too little liaison between schools and employers about the provision of mutual aid.
We must make the maximum use of our resources. It is better to burn them out by using them fully in many different ways than to husband them frugally well past the date of obsolescence. Visits to centres of education are too often like expeditions into industrial or educational archeology.
The training explosion must be understood to realise the demand that exists for teaching skills. Few commercial and industrial organisations have more than a handful of people with real teaching skills. The scope for exchange between an education system in which teachers feel themselves to be boxed in and the commercial world must be great.
When a CBI delegation recently came to the Select Committee, we discussed this issue, and although the members of the delegation held varying views on almost every point, it was clear that some of them were already discussing with the Department of Education and Science the possibility of using teaching skills which are available in schools to help them with their training.
We must look again at the school day. Is there any reason why we should be constricted to a 9 am to 4 pm day? The limited school day was devised in a bygone era and it now serves mainly a purpose of social control. Its intention is to make it possible for two wage earners to go out and earn money while their children are taken off their hands by the education system.
As a long-term goal, we should seriously consider altering the use of schools, adopting a shift system. This is not a new idea, but an idea whose time has come. The Columbus technical institute in Ohio operates from 7 am until 11 pm on Mondays to Fridays and from 9 am until 4 pm on Saturdays. It has considerable use in the evenings, but it is available throughout those long hours, and that must be valuable to a community in which the work patterns of the adults is constantly changing. More and more shifts are being worked, even by senior managers.
Further thought should be given to teacher retraining. It is absurd to suggest that for teachers—or, indeed, for anyone else — one qualification is sufficient for a lifetime. I welcome the Secretary of State's suggestion of more money for local education authorities, although we are still a long way from the recommendations of the James report all those years ago. Why not pay teachers, and not only teachers but employees in many other industrial and commercial operations, with some kind of voucher which would give them a right, as they built them up, to choose where they went for training or retraining? The advantage would be that, if a person did not cash the voucher in that way, it would cost the education authority or the firm nothing. Those who were prepared to Undertake training would be able to cash the vouchers at approved institutions.
We need a huge increase in the number of part-time contracts, not as a cost cutting exercise, but because the opportunities are great for people in education to spend part of their time in adult education, technical training and so forth. It is absurd, for example, that in one educational institution that I know of, the suggestion that one of the staff should be entitled to a job share was turned down out of hand. Yet of all activities teaching is one which lends itself to job sharing. In theory the Government are keen on increasing job sharing.
If students grow out of school at an ever earlier age —and there is clear evidence that many school children find being constrained in school sufficiently irritating for them not to give of their best—might they perhaps be allowed to take an educational allowance with them into the public or private college of their choice? The output and standard could be controlled by the Government through the qualifications.
We now see a massive paradox. We see despair and disillusion among teachers while all around us the demand for education grows exponentially. I urge the Government to change the name, the system, the input and the outcome, and today's despair will become tomorrow's golden opportunity.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on entering the ballot for the debate, on getting it and on making a thoughtful speech? Although it is perhaps too early an hour to be excited about speeches in the Chamber, we owe him a debt because he has brought the issue before us this morning. I agree with much of what he said, although there might be a problem in turning some of his more interesting ideas into practical realities.
I go back to the first question. The hon. Member did not address himself to the sad fact that over the past 10 years our belief in education has evaporated. It makes an interesting exercise to compare yesterday's White Paper on education with the one that was introduced by the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education during the 1970–74 Conservative Government. The Government talked then about the expansion of nursery education and their aim to get 22 per cent. of the relevant age group into higher education. It is a sad reflection that in the intervening period the sights of the Conservative Government, and perhaps the sights of the nation, have been lowered so much. It would be attractive if we could rekindle that belief in education. We must consider carefully why a belief in education has evaporated to a certain extent. Too often in schools and elsewhere people were told, "Work hard at school and you will get a good job." Once graduates did not get jobs, the belief in education as a means to a meal ticket started to evaporate. It is sad that we did not encourage many more people with the intellectual curiousity to which the hon. Member referred to enjoy education for its own sake rather than as a meal ticket.
The education system was too much a failure system. Whatever the stage at which people left the system, they left feeling like failures. It is regrettable that tremendous emphasis' at all ages is placed on getting through examinations. The obverse of that point is that people will fail. The 11-plus examination has not yet been abolished

in many parts of the country. From 11 onwards, a number of tests and examinations are imposed on youngsters, most of which say, "You have failed." At university the emphasis is on the quality of the degree. The other day, I heard someone comment, "He got a PhD, but it was not a very good one." Failure seems to stay with people.
The hon. Member talked also about youngsters outgrowing schools. Recently I have been in many schools and have been amazed by the fact that in many primary schools the teachers often treat the youngsters as adults, giving them amazing amounts of responsibility. The youngsters respond extremely well. Too often, the teachers at secondary schools start to treat the youngsters as children, rather than as young adults. It is paradoxical that, the older the youngsters in a school, the less responsibility and independence they are given. I agree with the hon. Member that many youngsters outgrow school, because some schools impose rigid restrictions. Many youngsters move to tertiary colleges and sixth form away from traditional schools because of such attitudes.
It is important that we apportion some of the blame for the way in which belief in education has disappeared. Shirley Williams, as the Secretary of State for Education and Science, during the Labour Government, has to accept some of the blame. The dithering over the examinations system was fatal to education. She allowed the myth to develop that standards were falling. When the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Carlisle) was Secretary of State he allowed the myth about falling standards to continue. Assisted places and vouchers implied that some of the state schools were not good enough and that standards were falling.
Standards have risen. If standards are measured by examination results or other criteria and if schools of today are compared with those of 20 years ago, the achievement is considerable.
We do not give enough credit to the education system which coped with a major bulge in the population of young people. By and large, the school system coped successfully. It is only now that youngsters are leaving school and searching for jobs and only now that they are searching for housing accommodation that society is letting them down. We should have placed on record the fact that over the past 20 years our education system has succeeded, although, of course, it could do better.
The Government were right in the White Paper yesterday to talk about wanting to raise standards, but they should give credit also to the fact that schools have done well. I appreciate the fact that the Government are grasping the nettle of reorganising examinations. I am a little worried, especially with the present dispute, that the Government are not giving teachers sufficient time to get the curriculum going. I am worried also that many schools with imaginative curricula will find that their curricula will be reduced to fit a national pattern. That would be disturbing. At least the Government are getting on with reorganising the examination system. I am pleased that the Government are going for the record of achievement, which I believe will encourage youngsters.
The real problem with all of those initiatives is whether the Government are producing the money. Resources are the key to improving standards. We got through the past 20 years with massive economies of scale. The education system has done well to get through those economies of scale, but now the Government are asking for economies


from contraction. That really is not possible. The Government say that the pupil-teacher ratio is better and expenditure per pupil is better, but an awful lot of capital items are there whether there are 30 pupils or 20 in the class room. They are not items on which you can benefit from economies of contraction. And it is going to cost more to maintain curriculum width for fewer pupils. So the Government have to take on the question of the amount of resources available.
Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman is right that there is going to be a tremendous expansion in demand, we have got to convince the country that it must be prepared to pay. I wish that the Minister and the Secretary of State would spend a bit more time going out into the country campaigning for education and pointing out that if we want to be a prosperous country education is important.
The hon. Member gave a few details of the number of people getting education in this country as with other countries and pointed out that if we are to be able to compete in the world we must have more highly trained personnel. He reminded us that we are very proud that we are a democracy in this country, but increasingly taking decisions involves a great deal of information and the skills to evaluate it. If we want to be a genuine democracy we have got to talk about widening educational opportunities and supplying information and skills to the whole population, not just to a selected group.
When it comes to leisure opportunities, again education is a very important component for a very large number of people in making their leisure enjoyable.
There is a Government myth that we can transfer resources from the arts and the social services to technology. We cannot do that effectively. We must find extra resources. It is ironic that in many ways it is not our scientists and technologists who are letting this country down. If we take the mining industry in the last 12 months, it was not that we did not have good mining engineers and good mining technology; it was our inability to manage the industry effectively that let us down. If we take housing, it is not that we have not got good architects and builders; it is our inability to put those skills together to ensure that people live in decent housing. I could give a lot of other examples.
If the Government want a peaceful, contented society, it is important that we put extra resources into the whole education field and that we do not rob one diminished area to build up another area.
It seemed to me very sad that in the Government White Paper on better schools there was not a commitment to expand nursery education. Getting the start right is crucial in our education system. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent made the point that we have an awful lot of empty school buildings, so it would not be all that expensive to take the opportunity now to expand nursery education. Even if we returned to the target set by the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, we should be talking about a very considerable expansion of nursery education.
The Government must also take up the whole question of teacher morale. There will not be good results from education if the Government continue the conflict with the teachers. In one of the schools that I visited this week the head was talking about wanting to get curriculum development going. He pointed out that for much of the summer term last year there was virtually no discussion of this among the staff outside school hours because of the

sanctions. And the same thing will happen this year. I believe that the Government have got to find some more money and that with an injection of new money they could get effective talks going, improve the morale of teachers and set in train many of the things that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent wants to see done in the schools.
If we have got falling rolls we must look at making the schools a community resource. We have got to tell the teachers that it is important that they bring other people into them, because that changes the attitudes in schools.
We await with interest the Government Green Paper on higher education, but it is very sad that this is being prepared in terms of maintaining the status quo and of contraction rather than in terms of the importance of expanding higher education in the interests of prosperity, democracy and enhancing people's leisure.
I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member did not refer to the Open University. This would have been an opportunity to put in a firm plea for the Government to listen to all the advice that was given by the visiting committee, which said that the Open University was doing a first-class job. We should be talking about expansion and widening the university's role, demonstrating that its skills of distance learning can be applied to a wider group of people and can also be used as a resource for many of the schools and other educational areas. Yet apparently the Government's response to the visiting committee is to leave the Open University with the same cuts, but just a year later than was said before.
The point that I want to make to the Minister — I think that it is the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent was really making—is that for all our futures' sake, we must expand education and make sure that it becomes an exciting world where intellectual curiosity is important, but where we are also serving the nation. All our futures depend on having a first-class education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) not only on his good fortune in securing a place in tonight's debate but on his choice of subject. From the compendium portmanteau title that he gave to the subject, it was a little uncertain quite what to expect. The debate strayed somewhat into the area covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and it would not be proper for me to say too much about it, but I hope to say something about relations between the Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the manner in which he holds his office in my Department. It is also a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish taking part in the debate.
There is an element of chance that we are having the debate within the same parliamentary sitting as the launch of "Better Schools". I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say something about "Better Schools", because the more widely the propositions in it are understood in the nation, the better it will be for our system.
The White Paper sets out the Government's policies for schools in a way that has no post-war precedent. Whereas


earlier White Papers were mainly concerned with the structure and organisation of the school system, "Better Schools" is mainly concerned with what is actually taught and how it is taught. That follows logically from the Government's two principal aims for education at school, first to raise standards at all levels of ability, to which I shall return, and secondly to secure the best possible return from the resources invested. I shall also return to that matter in the context of the speech by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.
The White Paper shows how all the Government's policies for schools pursue those two aims by making the curriculum as it is delivered in the schools serve better than it does now the needs of the individual and of the nation by developing each pupil's full potential and preparing him for the responsibilities of citizenship and working life in a technological and competitive world. Many schools cope successfully with their increasingly demanding task, to which my hon. Friend referred in his remarks about the teaching profession. However, many schools also show weaknesses. If the high standards achieved by pupils of all abilities in some schools could be achieved in all comparable schools, the quality of school education would rise dramatically.
The Government cannot act alone. The education service is a partnership in which local education authorities and teachers have essential roles. However, the Government have a responsibility and a duty to give a lead and also to have regard to the needs of the schools' customers, not least parents and employers. The Government are not taking new legal powers to discharge that responsibility, but are using their existing powers to fulfil a duty and meet a national need. Criticism that the Government's policies are centralist is misplaced. They acknowledge the distribution of functions between the partners and the need for a co-operative effort. It can only help good education for the Government to set out how they will discharge their functions and what they expect of their partners in the discharge of theirs.
In terms of the objectives in the White Paper, the Government will take the lead in promoting national agreement about the purposes and content of the curriculum. The proposals will encourage schools to do more to fulfil the vital function of preparing all young people for work. They will complete the reform of the public examination system taken at 16 in the interests of the curriculum and standards. They will introduce the new examination—the AS-level—to broaden the programme of students on A-level courses. They will work towards a national system of records of achievement, and I was pleased to hear a welcome for that. They will make the in-service training of teachers more effective through new financial arrangements; that matter played a large part in my hon. Friend's speech. They will give school governing bodies more balanced membership and improve the distribution of functions of governors, local education authorities an heads in regard to their schools. They will set new guidelines on the minimum size of schools. They will take steps to reduce under-achievement, including that found among many ethnic minorities, and they will tackle truancy through improvements in the work and training of education welfare officers.
As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, the Government recognise that it may be difficult to achieve

those policies in full within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil, but substantial progress can be made with better use of the available resources and there is considerable and continuing scope for redeployment through increased efficiency. The efforts made by the education service can only help its future claims on resources.
My hon. Friend cited the proportion of the work force who do not have even one CSE pass. It was that basic statistic, among others, that stimulated my right hon. Friend's speech in Sheffield a year ago, in which he addressed the questions of breadth, balance, differentiation and relevance in the curriculum and also signalled the changes in the examination system.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is more confident than the majority of the House that standards have risen during the past 20 years. He clearly joined issue with us on that, and it was one of the common causes that followed the Sheffield speech. But much still needs to be done and the more that the various partners in the system can collaborate the more we are likely to achieve.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister really claiming that standards have not risen? Surely he accepts that standards have risen in exam results. I remember teaching in secondary modern schools in the 1960s and the problems we had to contend with then are not present in the vast majority of schools now.

Mr. Brooke: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. By putting the matter in the way that he did, he underestimated the concern of parents about the quality of present standards, which of itself provides motive for a further improvement.
Although the fact that a large number of people have limited qualifications played a large part in the Sheffield speech, the speech also continuously emphasised the concern about our under-achievement overall and not simply in the bottom half.
My hon. Friend referred to the role of teachers and the new demands on them. "Better Schools" addresses itself specifically to that issue and recognises the difference in roles which they are being asked to fulfil. The White Paper reminds us of the work which was set in motion by DES circular 3/84, which was Welsh Office circular 21/84 on initial teacher training. It set out the considerations on which the council for the accreditation of teacher education will base its work in the reform, review and upgrading of teacher training throughout the system.
The most significant element is that which relates to in-service training. This is a response to the recent ACSET report. I remind the House of paragraph 176 in "Better Schools", which sets out what is envisaged. The Government have concluded that the most effective way of achieving these aims on in-service training would be through the introduction of a new specific grant to support LEA expenditure on most aspects of in-service training, including that expenditure currently supported through the in-service training pool. They propose accordingly to introduce legislation to extend the Secretary of State's existing power to grant-aid in-service training.
It is envisaged that the grants paid under the extended power would fall into two parts. One part would continue the existing in-service training grants for national priority areas of training. The other would be a general in-service training grant to cover both provision and release costs for


training that is planned to meet locally assessed priorities. The expenditure to be supported by the grant will be determined each year. It is envisaged that the conditions of grant to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State would require each LEA to submit information about its plans for in-service training, including arrangements for identifying teachers' needs for in-service training and making good use of the teachers who have been released to engage in this training.
Responsibility for planning and implementing much in-service training would continue to rest with the LEAs as employers of most teachers, but within a framework that would enable the more effective planning and management of training. Those last three words are key words in the process that is envisaged.
I recognise the problems which are contained within the present situation which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent graphically described. The Government are clear that a key method of improving standards is to concentrate on teacher training both initially and in in-service work. Clear proposals are coming forward on how that will be implemented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent talked a bit about further education, but it did not play as large a part in the speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. My hon. Friend referred to the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that there will be a working study and review of qualifications in this area.
In further education, there is a responsiveness to meet the changing needs of industry and commerce. That was very much a problem which was addressed in "Training for Jobs". I remind the House that that was a White Paper which was brought forward by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment. As the House will recall, there was an Her Majesty's Inspectorate report shortly thereafter on the relationship between the further education college system and local industry. It showed that in nearly half the cases considered relations were good and that in a further third relations were adequate. However, in 20 per cent. of cases relations were not good and that is where work needed to be done. "Training for Jobs" is directed to that objective. It is now well known that the Audit Commission will be producing a report on efficiency within the FE system, and that will demand a response by the Government. There is also concern to exemplify value for money within the system.
In this context, I acknowledge—I am glad to say that employers now acknowledge this, too—that employers do not always articulate their needs as clearly as they might. I was delighted to have the chance to launch one of the college-employer link projects. These are being undertaken on a pilot basis to see what can be learnt from eight cases spread around the country—north and south, urban and rural—about ways of further improving the links between colleges and employers. Those projects are now well advanced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to the report "Competence and Competition". A clear message of the report is the need for greater investment by employers in the whole training process. The Government's response is the commitment to the youth training scheme that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made last week. A substantial part of the additional cost of a two-year scheme will be expected to come from the

employers' side. A significant feature of the move towards a two-year scheme is that a longer course should lead to recognised qualifications. My hon. Friend referred to the study that is to be made of that. One thing that will be examined is the extent to which we can build up a modular credit system in the framework of CPVE — the certificate of pre-vocational education—so that people on the scheme can put together a qualification by means of a series of modules.
I am not sure that it is sensible to dwell at length on TVEI — the technical and vocational educational initiative—today as it is still at the pilot stage, although it has been greeted with enthusiasm by all those involved —teachers and pupils. Local authorities have also been anxious to participate. What is clearly emerging is a shortage of teachers to teach the required subjects in certain areas, so in the next couple of years, before the Government secure through Parliament legislative powers for specific grants there will be a period in consultation with the Manpower Services Commission of expanding in-service training in those areas.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The attractive feature of TVEI for the schools participating is the injection of resources and equipment. If it is intended to extend TVEI or anything else, the Government will have to find the resources to make it a practicality.

Mr. Brooke: I take the point. An element of the enthusiasm has been the availability of resources with which to work. The presence of volunteer teachers and pupils and of some extra resources clearly does wonders for enthusiasm.
Incidentally, on the industrial secondment of teachers under the Department's scheme to provide direct grants to LEAs in this context, I am glad to say that that now extends to further education. Likewise, I am delighted that one of the education support grants is directed to in-service training among further education teachers in information technology.
My hon. Friend used fighting words about higher education and talked of it being the most inefficient sector. This is a matter in which I have direct responsibility. Indeed, I am chairman of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, so I am clearly on sensitive and vulnerable ground in the light of what my hon. Friend said.
The review being conducted under the chairmanship of Sir Alex Jarratt by industrialists and academics on efficiency in the university system is due next month.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will it be published next month?

Mr. Brooke: It will be received next month. I cannot give a date for publication, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have a good record on publishing documents, even when they are sometimes inconvenient.
My hon. Friend will know from public expenditure White Papers that there has been a continuing efficiency squeeze on universities' resources, which is reflected in staff-student ratios. The effect is even more noticeable in the public sector where the increase in productivity has been significant—it has gone up from about 8:1 to 11:1 under this Government.
My hon. Friend took an idiosyncratic view of the low drop-out rates. Many people feel that one of the glories of


the British system is that those who enter higher education pass out with degrees faster and more efficiently than elsewhere. One in four of the cohort which arrive each autumn—not just freshmen—get a degree the following summer. The figure for the West as a whole is one in seven, so in terms of the deployment of resources, ours is a significant achievement. Professor Marris' recent lecture at Birkbeck college dwelt on that. I should be loth to extend our successful three-year course. The familiar statistic is that there have been 60,000 more students in higher education since 1979.
As for the efficient use of buildings, I hesitate to say that, outside the House, few people like working through the night, so there are problems associated with getting more intense use of facilities. Much maintenance of buildings and equipment is done during vacations and, of course, research continues. A significant development has been the use of university facilities and campuses for conferences on a large scale. It is not widely known that the total income of British universities, including all outside sources of income, research contracts and grants, has increased by 18 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is a significant achievement on the part of the institutions.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the switch to engineering and technology. The Government are determined to pursue the conversion of higher education to even greater economic and social relevance. The hon. Gentleman said that we are deploying resources away from the arts to science and engineering. The extra numbers of science and engineering students are among the 60,000 I mentioned earlier, and there is no reduction in the other subjects to which he referred. The hon. Gentleman will know that £43 million for the next three years was announced in the Budget, and further exemplified in documents since.

Mr. Bennett: Not completely new money.

Mr. Brooke: I agree that there is a degree of redeployment. Nevertheless, three quarters of it is money that would not have previously been available to higher education, and in that sense it is an expansion.

Mr. Bennett: How much of it is new money?

Mr. Brooke: It is new money to those who will be able to deploy it in science, engineering and technology. It comes from outside the UGC's previous grant.
I welcome my hon. Friend's emphasis on quality and rigour. Some of what he said will be read with interest in higher education institutions throughout the land. I am not wholly sure that his comparison with American experience is helpful in our context because much of the American emphasis in higher education is on the graduate degree, and the undergraduate degree would not be regarded as strictly comparable to that which exists here.
My hon. Friend referred to adult and continuing education in his comprehensive speech. In terms of the adult training strategy, my Department and the Department of Employment are involved. I am delighted at the success of PICKUP. It is possible to under-estimate what is happening and the strength of the current in this area. To take an example from my hon. Friend's county, it is warming that the university of Kent and Kent local education authority have combined in an adult education

centre, where university and county provision go on side by side. It is reported that students in one category are sampling what is available in the other. A great deal is going on in adult education.
My hon. Friend referred to the Manpower Services Commission. The new chairman of the MSC and I have, wholly by chance, known each other for more than 20 years. He is kind enough to say that I launched him on his career. It profoundly helps the quality of the working relationship between my Department and the commission.
I shall say a brief word about the links betwen schools and business. Again absolutely by chance, I had occasion yesterday to visit St. Mary's, Twickenham, where there is a pilot diploma in the practices and principles of industry and commerce as an in-service training exercise. I met the teacher-students on the present course and those from last year's course. The enthusiasm for the work that those on last year's course were getting from pupils, employers and fellow teachers was particularly warming. At present the diploma course is funded by industry. It is a most impressive initiative.
My hon. Friend referred to hours in schools and in other parts of the system. He would be encouraged by the considerable use made of equipment in the TVEI experiments. In the public sector of higher education, the contact hours on computers is jumping regularly each year as a function of their being used longer and longer throughout the day.
Of course, I understand what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said about resources, and he will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday. He will also be aware of the study which we published late last year on how the teaching force might be redeployed, with the intention of increasing the number of teachers in areas where we wish to see improvements and for which we have set objectives. That increase would be partly sustained by the redeployment of other teachers from areas with falling rolls. I recognise that that requires a considerable exercise in political will, but we shall not need extra resources to achieve the switch. I hope that we shall see more of it. The hon. Gentleman regretted the fact that there was little reference to nursery education. I am delighted to say that more under-fives are receiving nursery education now than ever before, but I recognise that it is still a minority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to the process of recruitment into universities and higher education generally. The advice that we received from the University Grants Committee and the national advisory body last September extended the Robbins principle into the ability to benefit. In a debate in the House on 26 October, when giving an initial Government response, which will be amplified in the Green Paper, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was content with that extension, provided that there would be real rigour in the higher education institutions in analysing and assessing the ability of the candidate to benefit from the system. I am delighted to say that the number of mature students in higher education has increased during the lifetime of this Government and their immediate predecessors, and the projections for the rest of the decade and into the 1990s show a higher increase.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned the Open university. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to the visiting committee's report, in one way or another a further £2 million has been


provided for each of the next two years, against the original cut of £4·7 million. I agree that the Open university still believes that it needs more, and that dialogue will continue.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: But the Open university did not accept the Government's figure for the cut, did it? It believed that it was much more.

Mr. Brooke: That is perfectly true, but we eventually reached reconciliation. A problem with the Open university, which was exemplified by the slowness with which it explained the figure of £13·2 million which it cited, is also reflected in the visiting committee's report. Chapters 1 and 6 contain references to the visiting committee asking the Open university for details of how its costs were made up, in terms of the savings that it was seeking, and the Open university was unable to answer those questions.
I said at the beginning that it was impossible to know what to expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent. He has stimulated a most valuable debate, and I am delighted to have taken part in it. I hope that in the future there will be similar opportunities to discuss the education system. It was warming to see yesterday the many hon. Members who wished to ask questions about the White Paper, which is a sign of the concern which the House has for education.

Orders of the Day — Radio Regulatory Regime

Mr. Barry Henderson: Despite having sat through the night, we have only 17 minutes before the end of the debate during which I must make my points and my hon. Friend the Minister must respond to them. Therefore, I shall cut significantly points that I felt it would be important to draw to the attention of the House about the radio regulatory regime. I shall concentrate—in so far as one can at this time—on some of the key points which I believe require further study, and which I hope will be further studied by the House on another occasion. Parliament has granted the Executive exceptional powers for radio regulations, stemming from the first Wireless Telegraphy Acts of the last century, and continuing to the most recent enactments. Great advances in technology have been made, and recently, the Government have committed themselves to the liberalisation of the telecommunication and radio regimes.
There is a new explosion of services—new firms are being established and new jobs are being created in response to the growing number of business and personal users. Everybody is catching up or catching on, except the radio regulating department, despite its transition from the Home Office to the Department of Trade and Industry. Parliament has given it extraordinary powers, but, if they are to be granted, there must be certainty that they will not be used harshly by the Department.
If a policeman seized a bicycle chain from somebody at a football rally, that would be good, and most of us would agree that that would be the right exercise of his powers as an officer. However, if he went along to the newspaper boy's bicycle and took the chain off it, that would be bad; and, even if it were legal, it would be an abuse of the powers conferred on that officer.
The regulatory authorities also have powers, for example, through the Telecommunications Act 1984. Section 79 (3) says:
If a constable or any person authorised by the Secretary of State to exercise the power conferred by this subsection has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence to which this section applies has been or is being committed, he may seize and detain, for the purposes of any relevant proceedings, any apperatus or the thing which appears to him to have been used in connection with or to be evidence of the commission of any such offence.
In individual cases, these powers should never be used, unless we can be sure that such extreme action was the only reasonable and practical course.
How much more that consideration should apply when the equipment concerned provides a common base station for a number of users. The one near me provides a medical emergency service and private security services. However, the power exists to pull the plug on that without so much as a "by your leave" to anyone.
If such use of the power could ever be justified, it would have to be in such circumstances that the combination of evidence and necessity should be so strong that immediate and real action would be taken against the alleged transgressor. If it were not so, I hope that the House would condemn the use of the administrative procedures in the way that they have been exercised. That a business can be killed by having its equipment removed and by dragging out further administrative procedures, until the customers


have disappeared, is scandalous. If the House believed that that was happening, I hope that steps would be taken to withdraw those powers.
It is not so much a question of ill-will among the radio regulatory authorities as sheer inefficiency. A case has recently been drawn to my attention in which a firm was requested to pay an incorrect amount for a licence. On 20 January 1984, 7 June 1984 and 18 February 1985 this firm applied for permission to use equipment that was additional to the equipment for which the licence was granted. Because of that application, the amount was wrong. The Department was undercharging the firm for the use of its equipment.
I believe the Department got it wrong because its records had not caught up with the information that had been provided on the dates I have mentioned. Therefore, it sought to undercharge this firm. I believe that a different arm of the Department thought that the firm had not told it all that it ought to have done. That may be the reason why harsh action was taken against the firm. However, the Department had not caught up with its paperwork.
If I may give another example, within a period of seven weeks a firm applied for 22 licences. A pre-paid acknowledgment card was supplied with each application. Only three have been returned, but no licences. Yet another firm wanted to change an existing licence to a different frequency. It applied on 27 February. No acknowledgment was received, so rather less than a month later, on 18 March, a telephone call was made to the Department. The Department denied having received the application. When the firm mentioned that it had sent the application by recorded delivery it took the Department just five minutes to change its mind. It then informed the firm that it could do nothing about it as the required files were on the other side of London. As the firm very reasonably points out, its customer required the equipment and it required the revenue but everything was held up to ransom by the arbitrary action of the Department.
I am very concerned about my discoveries in recent weeks. I hark back to some of the early discussions during the first round of proceedings on the Telecommunications Act. Concern was expressed at that time about the way in which some people behaved towards the radio regulatory authorities. I condemn the taking out on servants of the Crown of the frustration that is felt because of the way in which the Crown exercises its powers. Concern has also been expressed about the effect that the Department can have upon businesses.
If it can be shown, as I believe would be possible if we had more time in which to debate the problem, that the Department's efficiency of service is inadequate to meet the needs of today or that it is exercising its powers unreasonably, I hope that my hon. Friend will take the most urgent action to put things right. We are in business to help businesses, not to ruin them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): This Government are in the business of helping business. We would not connive at practices which would be detrimental to business interests and wealth creation, and therefore, to job creation. I am familiar with the background to the

comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and I shall respond in general terms on the principle of radio regulation, but I shall not go into detail, as my hon. Friend did, on a constituency basis.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to explain the importance of radio regulation and to outline the Government's policy on the enforcement of wireless telegraphy legislation.
Radio-borne services affect nearly every aspect of our lives. The absence or degradation of these services could undermine the economic viability of a wide range of important service industries ranging from taxi services to airline operations. The operations of defence, law and order and safety of life services are now virtually unthinkable without effective radio systems. Escalating demands for information, news, entertainment and telecommunications can also be met most readily by radio systems, and no space system is viable without effective radio communication.
Regulation of the radio frequency spectrum is a necessary pre-requisite to the effectiveness in all radio operations and all manufacturing or service industries that depend on radio. This is first because of the growing variety, scale and importance of these services and their conflicting demands for a limited natural resource. Secondly, it is because of the characteristics of radio waves and the technologies available to handle them.
The important characteristics are first that radio waves do not stop at national frontiers. A nation cannot draw up its plans unilaterally, or it will both suffer and cause harmful interference. The effective use of radio demands a very high degree of international co-operation. The more intensively the spectrum is used, the more important the international dimension becomes.
Secondly, it is a resource that can be shared by a distinctive frequency assignment to each user; by users on the same frequency assignment on a geographical basis; by users of the same frequency on a time basis; or by invoking advanced technology to superimpose transmissions.
Thirdly, it is susceptible to pollution. Harmful interference can be caused by other users of the radio spectrum and by spurious radiation produced by other electrical equipment. Without regulatory control, parts of the spectrum could be rendered useless by interference. Fourthly, it is in increasing demand.
Responsibility for radio regulation in the United Kingdom rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for United Kingdom participation in the international negotiations in the International Telecommunications Union, for licensing and law enforcement on the use of the spectrum nationally, under the powers conferred by the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 and 1967, and the Telecommunications Act 1984.
At international level, administrations co-operate to produce international radio regulations and international frequency allocation tables. These tables form the basis of the United Kingdom national frequency allocation tables which are the framework within which frequency assignment and licensing is carried out. Thus, the whole process from the international agreement to the licensing of an individual taxi firm is an unbroken continuum.
The BBC, IBA, British Telecom and Mercury each have a single omnibus licence with schedules authorising the use of their various frequencies. Other users must


apply for one of about 70 types of standard licences, designed to meet a variety of needs. Users of radio are grouped in frequency bands within which individual assignments for similar radio services can make the best use of radio frequencies without causing or experiencing harmful interference.
Frequency assignment processes are technically complex and are becoming more so with the growth of demand for radio services. They are distinctively different for various types of use and in different parts of the radio frequency spectrum. In order to make the best possible use of the spectrum most users of land mobile and fixed services do not have their own exclusive frequency. Frequencies can be re-used across the United Kingdom by exploiting geographical separation and terrain.
This re-use means that every proposed frequency assignment has to be co-ordinated with other existing and proposed assignments for the same frequency, together with adjacent and related frequencies. Further coordination requirements are imposed where users of a service are required to share the same frequencies with other services. To make this system work, each authorised land mobile radio user receives a licence to which is attached a schedule—
It being Nine o'clock on Wednesday morning, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Fleetwood (Grants)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

9 am

Sir Walter Clegg: I am pleased to be able to raise the Adjournment debate even at the end of a long, weary all night sitting, and I would not have contemplated raising the debate unless I thought it was of great importance to my constituents.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House and of the Government the problems that confront the port of Fleetwood consequent upon the loss of its deep sea fishing fleet. Since the beginning of the century, Fleetwood has been the biggest deep sea fishing port on the west coast of England. During both world wars, its trawlers fed the country and its trawlermen manned many of the Royal Navy's minesweepers. The deep sea fleet was the heart of a thriving community. As a rough rule, it could be said that for every fisherman at sea there were five jobs ashore. The ancillary trades included merchants, dockers, filleters, fish processors, engineers, chandlers, transport workers, ice house workers, fish meal factory workers, ship's husbands and the clerical trades and employment that go with the administration of such an ancillary network.
The deep sea fleet, therefore, was a staple industry of the port. It was like the pit to the mining village, the steelworks to the steel town and the textile mills to the cotton and woollen towns.
It is crucial to my argument that the Government and the EEC should regard Fleetwood's loss of its deep sea fleet in the same way as they regard the rundown of the basic industries in coal, steel and textiles in particular.
I should like to give the House some basic statistics which have already been provided by Wyre borough council to the Department of my hon. Friend the Minister.
In 1963, the number of fishermen fishing out of Fleetwood was 1,583, a total which represented 11 per cent. of the employment in the Fleetwood exchange area. By 1981, that figure had fallen to 243, which represented nearly 2·8 per cent. of employment. Now there are virtually no deep sea fishermen sailing regularly from Fleetwood.
In 1963, Wyre borough calculated that some 4,000 jobs, or 28 per cent. of the total employment in Fleetwood, were dependent on the industry. All that has changed. It is easy to understand why. In 1976, we had a distant water fleet of 29 vessels. By 1982, it had been reduced to 10 vessels, and now in 1985 there is none. The decline of the deep sea fleet was not confined to Fleetwood alone. Hull, Grimsby and Aberdeen suffered in the same way.
The reason is not hard to identify. The decline was due not to the inefficiency of the industry or over-manning. It was due directly to the loss of the Icelandic fishing grounds, where for years the fleet had legally fished. There were no alternative grounds, either within our 200-mile limit or in EEC waters, that could make up the loss of the commercial fishing grounds off Iceland.
The long and complex negotiations for a common fisheries policy added to the uncertainty, and there is nowhere in sight a fishery that could replace the Icelandic grounds. Thus, the rush out to 200-mile limits, internationally recognised, sounded the death-knell of our deep sea fleet.
The position in Fleetwood now is that we have an inshore fleet of 69 vessels, many of them old, and those vessels are incapable of making up for the loss of the deep sea landings. These inshore vessels lack the catching capacity of the old deep sea fleet, and its ability to stay at sea in bad weather to maintain year round supplies. Indeed, the inshore fleet is having great difficulty in surviving. Its fishing grounds in the Irish sea have been clobbered by the incursions of foreign beam trawlers and the costs of nets, fuel oil and other vital equipment are constantly rising. The inshore fleet is living from hand to mouth and is being sustained only by the grit and determination of its fishermen. The fishing port is now reliant on fish sent overland, largely from Scottish ports.
We have seen in Fleetwood the loss of a staple industry. It is as though a pit, a steel works or a textile mill had closed in a community that depended on it. Nor were there redundancy payments from the EEC or employers for fishermen who lost their jobs. Because of the method of employment, the vast majority of Fleetwood's fishermen —as those in Hull, Grimsby and Aberdeen—got no redundancy, and certainly not the sums one hears mentioned for the steel industry, with over £20,000 being paid to some workers on being made redundant.
The fishermen who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs, received no compensation. They have not been able, therefore, to start up the small businesses that have been started in some steel towns, where redundancy payments have been used to revivify industry in those places. The British Fishermen's Association is fighting the case for compensation to be paid, and I fully support it in that endeavour, but it will be a hard fight.
What help is Fleetwood getting to cope with the rundown of this staple industry? Precious little, is the answer. There are de-commissioning grants for some vessels, but they are paid for taking them out of fishing, not for increasing their fishing capacity. We were an assisted area, but that status has now been taken from us. With the loss of that grant has gone our access to EEC funding, which was proving useful to the community in helping to overcome the rundown of its staple industry. In January 1985, Fleetwood had an unemployment rate of 28·5 per cent. among men and 16·2 per cent. among women—a total of 22 per cent., compared with 17 per cent. for total unemployment in the Blackpool travel-to-work area of which we form a part, 16·7 per cent. in the north-west region and 13·7 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.
As a direct comparison, in the Hull and Grimsby travel-to-work areas, which have similar problems to ours, the unemployment rates are 17·1 per cent. and 17·3 per cent. respectively. Both Hull and Grimsby and the textile areas of Lancaster and east Lancashire get help from the EEC regional development non-quota fund which, I understand, has been established to deal with areas where there has been a deep decline in staple industries. I believe that Fleetwood should be given similar treatment to help it diversity its industries and deal with the problems that the loss of the deep sea fleet has created.
It is not that the port is just sitting on its backside rattling a begging bowl. For example, the Wyre borough council has set up in the Fleetwood area the Wyre Development Agency, which was created with sponsors such as ICI and which, in its first year, created 186 new

jobs; and Wyre Community Services, acting as agent for the MSC, which provides up to 250 jobs a year on community programme and youth training projects.
To present a fair picture, the non-fishing side of the port has developed a roll-on, roll-off ferry service to Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, operated by Pandoro and B and I. It has increased its imports of grain and timber and exports of scrap metal. A great deal is being done to keep the non-fishing side of the port very active.
We need help to get more projects going which could increase the port's efficiency and the general structure of industry in the town. I could go on at great length about the other projects that are being undertaken and also mention many of the projects that have already been cited to the Department by Wyre borough council when its members came to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier).
I am asking not for charity but for a fair deal from the Government and the EEC. I believe that Fleetwood's case has been fully made out. It is as powerful a case as that put forward by Hull, Grimsby or the textile towns. We have suffered from events far beyond our control. I plead with the Under-Secretary of State to ensure that Fleetwood gets a fair deal. That would only be justice.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) for taking this opportunity to raise an issue which is obviously dear to his heart. He mentioned a number of dilemmas and difficulties on behalf of his constituents who have been well served by him this morning in this, the dawn patrol of our all-night debate. Perhaps only an hon. Member who represents an erstwhile fishing industry has the stamina to endure the rigours of life in Parliament on such occasions and to come up with the first-watch speech on this issue.
I think it is right that the House should therefore thank my hon. Friend for bringing these problems, and particularly the problems of Fleetwood, to its attention. He has shown diligence in pursuing the interests of his constituents; indeed, earlier this year, as he has said, he accompanied a delegation from the Wyre borough council to impress further on my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for small businesses the problems of the area.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the situation in Fleetwood is not unknown to the Government, partly owing, as I said earlier, to the efforts of my hon. Friend in drawing them to our attention. The docks have suffered serious decline owing to the effects of the Icelandic fishing agreement, which excluded British vessels from Icelandic fishing waters. As my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, that was not the fault of those who were fishing and were based in Fleetwood. They were the victims of matters which were well and truely beyond their control.
This has, of course, caused problems regarding the rate and the structure of employment in Fleetwood. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the rest of the docks are successful and —excluding Liverpool, which is Merseyside — they make up Lancashire's busiest port. Between 1975 and 1980, the volume of trade through Fleetwood doubled to around 2 million tonnes per annum. Facilities available include a roll-on roll-off freight terminal, a berth for car and passenger ferries and a 55-hectare dockside estate, which is quite successful.
It would be wrong to give the impression that all is gloom in Fleetwood. There are one or two notable success stories.
With the decline of the fishing industry, Pandoro came on the scene in 1975 to provide a vital lifeline for the docks. Pandoro came in with a massive cash investment to establish a container shipping company linking Fleetwood with Ireland. Ten years on, Pandoro remains one of the biggest employers in North Fylde, with a work force of about 600 in England and Ireland. Services from Fleetwood have expanded and the company's investment in the venture has soared to near the £40 million mark. Today Pandoro's much-expanded services move 70,000 loads annually to and from Northern Ireland, in contrast to the 30,000 in the inaugural year.
My hon. Friend did not mention the potential of the Morecambe bay gas field and perhaps future offshore developments, but he will know that there are several developments on the horizon. We would hope to see Fleetwood and my hon. Friend's constituents participating in the potential in this area.
Britain is on the brink of the ninth oil round and tracts on the new frontier deep-water areas include blocks in the Irish Sea and areas to the north of the Isle of Man and off Cumbria, Lancashire and north Wales. Discretionary licences will be awarded by the Department of Energy probably towards the end of April or the beginning of May. The local central and west Lancashire chamber of commerce believes that there are oil and gas sources to be tapped which will be of benefit to the area. It is expected that Fleetwood will benefit as it had a strong involvement in the exploration programme leading up to the opening of the Morecambe bay gas field. I sincerely hope this will be the case.
Before I talk about the EC grants to which my hon. Friend has referred, I welcome this opportunity to explain to the House the basis of the new assisted areas map. The opportunity is welcome, as misunderstanding has been and still is rife. Many seem to have come to believe that the new map is biased—though which way it is thought to be biased depends on the viewpoint of the commentator.
That was not an assertion made by my hon. Friend, whose speech was founded in empiricism and was really a request for help on the basis that those unfortunate trends which have affected Fleetwood were not self-induced or indeed caused by those who work in not just the fishing industry but the subsidiary industries that supported that fleet in Fleetwood.
As we made clear in our White Paper, "Regional Industrial Development", the aim of regional industrial policy is the reduction of regional imbalances in employment opportunities on a stable, long-term basis. I dwell on that matter for only a moment because it is the assisted area map which, as my hon. Friend knows, dictates so much of what we can achieve in the European context. Indeed, specific types of help are excluded from those areas that the United Kingdom itself does not identify as assisted areas.
We invited views on the criteria for designating assisted areas, and over 300 submissions were received. Support for continuing to use unemployment as the main criterion in determining the policy was overwhelming. I shall refer to the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned. Those arguing that long-term unemployment was an appropriate

additional factor amounted to 18 per cent., fewer than those who argued in favour of industrial structure as the main factor or for peripherality.
Taking account of those submissions, our decisions on the map were based solely on areas' relative need for current and future employment opportunities. The main criterion was relative annual average employment rates. Relative long-term unemployment was also taken into account. In making our decisions on the map, we also took account of such factors as the relative pressures for new job opportunities expected to result from the varying age structure of the population in differing parts of the country. We also recognised that this may be affected by changes in local economic activity rates. Other factors were involved such as areas' differing industrial structure, and the occupations and skills of the population as they reflect the quality of local employment opportunities and the pool of entrepreneurial talent. We also considered handicaps to economic recovery, such as great distances from main markets and the general trend of industry to move out of the densely populated inner cities.
All those factors are objective criteria, but their relative importance is essentially subjective. We considered in great depth the scope for using a synthetic index. However, we concluded that no single index was capable of adequately reflecting the needs of areas, especially as account also needed to be taken of the relative positions of neighbouring areas.
So we came to the much-discussed travel-to-work areas and whether they could or should be used as building blocks for assisted area status. For areas that fall well short of being self-contained, the relationship between unemployment and job opportunities is greatly affected by the situation in adjoining areas—too greatly for such areas to be useful as the basis for a cost-effective regional industrial policy aimed at reducing disparities in employment opportunities.
Travel-to-work areas are the smallest units for which nationally comparable unemployment rates are available, and thus the best basis for a nationwide comparison of relative needs for employment opportunities. However, as colleagues and I have said before, their importance goes further than that, because new job opportunities are generally taken by people living in the whole local labour market rather than those solely in the immediate vicinity of the employment.
My hon. Friend is no doubt familiar with the case put forward by chambers of commerce up and down the country, which they summarised under the unemployment black spot proposals. They wish to see a much more focused regional aid and assisted area policy, particularly in areas of severe blight in inner cities. We looked at that matter closely. There was much sympathy for that approach, but we found that there was one flaw in it that tended to work against the areas of very localised and high unemployment. It was that there was no way that a Government, least of all an employer, could guarantee that any factory or enhanced activity set up in a particular location could automatically be totally staffed by those who live in the immediate vicinity of that new or enhanced facility. That "Realökonomie" tended to drive us back to the use of TTWAs. It is, therefore, within the travel-to-work areas that we find that unemployment rates on that general basis had a quite dramatic effect on who qualified or did not qualify for the coverage under the new assisted area map.
I fully appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend over the loss of assisted area status for the Blackpool travel-to-work area, but I can assure the House that we looked most carefully at the case for assistance for all such areas to see whether or not they merited continued prefential treatment over the rest of the country. But even with the substantially wider coverage of the new map, we could not justify continuing to assist all the areas previously covered on the old map.
It is for that reason that I have taken a little time this morning to explain the methodology which led to this decision. I am in no doubt that the decision was an unwelcome one, but I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend that it was an objective one in the impartial circumstances of national consideration.
On the question of how the Commission can help, the situation is that in December last year the Commission made proposals, in the form of a draft regulation, for measures under the European regional development fund to help with the development of new economic activities in certain areas affected by the implementation of the Community's fisheries policy. In broad terms, the assistance would be for areas where fisheries activities have been concentrated and have declined; but only areas meeting the criteria proposed in the draft regulation would be eligible. The criteria relate to employment and job losses in the fisheries sector and to the social and economic situation of an area.
Fleetwood is not one of the areas proposed by the Commission to be eligible for such aid. The Commission concluded that Fleetwood does not meet the criteria it has in mind. The Commission's proposals are that there should be nearly £7·5 million of assistance for the United Kingdom, the same amount for Denmark, and about £5 million for France. For the United Kingdom, the Commission has proposed that the aid should be available only to Hull and Grimsby. There is no doubt that Hull and Grimsby should be among the areas to benefit, but there are other ports in England, Scotland and Wales which also have a case to be accepted as eligible for aid on this kind of basis. Fleetwood has a case; and we shall press the case for Fleetwood — and other United Kingdom ports — to benefit as well as Grimsby and Hull.
As it is, we do not yet know when the Commission's proposals may come before the Council of Ministers for consideration, or what form the proposals will then take. The Commission's proposals were for the assistance to be made available under the non-quota section of the European regional development fund. However, the new ERDF Regulation which came into effect on 1 January this year made considerable changes in ERDF arrangements. Under the new regulation, there is no longer a non-quota section of the fund and the Commission has not yet said how its proposals will be related to the circumstances of the new regulation.
The proposals are for measures very much like the existing ERDF non-quota section measures under the old regulation for assistance to certain shipbuilding, steel and textile areas. Following the usual pattern, the assistance would not be for the fishing sector itself, but rather for the encouragement of alternative activities.
My hon. Friend has clearly demonstrated that Fleetwood is determined to help itself, but is looking for support to show solidarity with that self-help. The measures proposed include ERDF contributions to the cost of redeveloping and improving industrial sites where United Kingdom public expenditure is involved, measures for the promotion of tourism, and a range of assistance to help the development of small and medium-sized firms.
I cannot forecast what progress will be made with the Commission's proposals, or what the outcome may be; it is not entirely up to us. But we should like to see early progress and, as I have said, progress that would make the proposed assistance available to a number of United Kingdom ports, including Fleetwood.
The Department will again examine the comments that my hon. Friend has made on behalf of his constituents. We are grateful to him for keeping this issue to the fore. We appreciate the dilemma that the new map has caused him and a number of my hon. Friends from neighbouring parts of Lancashire and Scotland, who are in the Chamber.
I once again thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue of importance to many of my hon. Friends, and one that his constituents feel is crucial.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Nine o'clock on Wednesday morning.